Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00155-CR
02-01-2018
JUAN CARLOS PERERA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
Appellant Juan Carlos Perera pled guilty to the charged offense of driving while intoxicated, third offense or more, a third degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b)(2) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). The trial court sentenced Perera to six years' imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Perera appealed, and his court-appointed appellate 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
Perera's appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support in which she states that she has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no non-frivolous issues. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an 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 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
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), counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Appellant's counsel has also informed this Court that she has (1) notified him that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided him with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed him of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this Court. 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 609 n.23. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
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 the record and counsel's brief, and we have found no 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 Appellant Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.3d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
We order counsel to send a copy of this opinion and judgment to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review, within five days of the date of this opinion. 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, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
DORI CONTRERAS
Justice Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 1st day of February, 2018.