                                 IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-14-00196-CR

ELTON REYNOSO,
                                                           Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                           Appellee



                          From the 19th District Court
                           McLennan County, Texas
                          Trial Court No. 2012-1231-C1


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION


      A jury convicted Appellant Elton Reynoso of murder and assessed his

punishment at life imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West 2011). This

appeal ensued. We affirm.

      Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to

withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of

error upon which an appeal can be predicated. 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) (“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).

        In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling

authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment.                    Counsel has

informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable

grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to

withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and

to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813

S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate

period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.2 See Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 409.



        1 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.’” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955
S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

        2Nowhere in the record or in the documents received by the Court does appellant suggest that he
wants or sought the record but was unable to obtain it. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014).

Reynoso v. State                                                                                   Page 2
        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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

        In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at

1400; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776,

779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If 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.”)).                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 appellant and to advise him of

his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also


         3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for
rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

Reynoso v. State                                                                                     Page 3
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006).




                                                         REX D. DAVIS
                                                         Justice


Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Davis, and
       Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 12, 2015
Do not publish
[CRPM]




68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of
the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply
with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Reynoso v. State                                                                                   Page 4
