                            NUMBER 13-12-00200-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ALEJANDRO ELIZONDO,                                                        Appellant,

                                          v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                         Appellee.


                   On appeal from the 105th District Court
                         of Nueces County, Texas.


                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
  Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
      Alejandro Elizondo, appellant, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a

child and indecency with a child and was given ten years of deferred adjudication.   See

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. '' 22.02; 21.11 (West 2003).     The State filed a motion to revoke

alleging numerous violations. Elizondo pled true to ten of the twelve counts. The court
found that he had violated the two remaining counts and granted revocation.         He was

sentenced to twenty years= imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal

JusticeCInstitutional Division.

       Elizondo=s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to

be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack

thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.

                                       I.   DISCUSSION

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant=s

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review

of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated.

Although counsel=s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does

present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced on appeal.           See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (AIn 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 are no errors 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)


                                               2
informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within

thirty days.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.            Elizondo has filed a pro se response brief.

                                      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 entire record, counsel's brief and appellant’s

pro se brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.                           See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                     III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        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; 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.) (noting that A[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


        1
          The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe 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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).


                                                    3
brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.@) (citations omitted)). We

grant counsel=s motion to withdraw.           All other motions are dismissed as moot. Within

five days of the date of this Court=s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the

opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review.2       See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.



                                                                  __________________________
                                                                  GINA M. BENAVIDES,
                                                                  Justice

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

Delivered and filed the
4th day of April, 2013.




        2
           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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Effective September 1, 2011, any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.3
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3.


                                                     4
