

 











 
 
 
 
 
 
                                       NUMBER
13-10-00310-CR
 
                                        COURT OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI
- EDINBURG
                                                                     

 
ROSENDO TAMAYO JR.,                          
                  Appellant,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                   
Appellee.
                                                                     

 
On appeal from the County
Court at Law No. 3
of Cameron County,
Texas.
                                                              
       
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
                      Before
Justices Benavides, Vela and Perkes
                      Memorandum
Opinion by Justice Benavides
 
Rosendo
Tamayo Jr., appellant, was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and was
sentenced to 180 days in the county jail which was probated for fifteen
months.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
' 49.04 (West 2003).  Tamayo’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) 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.   
                                                                              
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,
counsels’s 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.  More than an
adequate period of time has passed, and Tamayo has not filed a pro se
response.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.  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 brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.@) (citations omitted)).  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 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 August, 2011. 
 




[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.)).


[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.  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 that was overruled by this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.  Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be
forwarded to the Texas 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
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.


