From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ledesma v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Nov 18, 2021
No. 13-20-00512-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2021)

Opinion

13-20-00512-CR

11-18-2021

SYLVESTER LEDESMA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.


Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GINA M. BENAVIDES, JUSTICE

Appellant Sylvester Ledesma appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2). The trial court sentenced Ledesma to five years' imprisonment. See id. § 12.33(a). Ledesma's court-appointed appellate 1 counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. Anders Brief

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Ledesma's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities." (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Ledesma's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Ledesma's counsel also informed this Court in writing that she (1) notified Ledesma that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Ledesma with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Ledesma of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that 2 the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Ledesma with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to sign and file the motion with the court of appeals within ten days by mailing it to the address provided. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and Ledesma has not requested access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.

II. Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed counsel's brief and the entire record, and we have found nothing that would support a finding of reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, Ledesma's counsel asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to 3 Ledesma and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Ledesma seeks further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court's judgment. 4


Summaries of

Ledesma v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Nov 18, 2021
No. 13-20-00512-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2021)
Case details for

Ledesma v. State

Case Details

Full title:SYLVESTER LEDESMA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

Date published: Nov 18, 2021

Citations

No. 13-20-00512-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 18, 2021)