                           NUMBER 13-12-00157-CR

                          COURT OF APPEALS

                 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                   CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

TIMOTHY DANIEL HERNANDEZ,                                              Appellant,


                                         v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                    Appellee.


              On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
                       of Victoria County, Texas.


                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides and Longoria
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
      Appellant, Timothy Hernandez, pleaded guilty to a second offense of driving

while intoxicated. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (West Supp. 2011). The trial

court assessed a sentence of 365 days in jail and a fine of $750. The court suspended

the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. The State
later filed a motion to revoke appellant’s supervision. 1             The trial court revoked

appellant’s supervision and reinstated the original sentence. This appeal followed.

                                        I. ANDERS BRIEF

       Appellant’s court-appointed appellant counsel has filed a brief and motion to

withdraw with this Court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),

stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which to base an

appeal. 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, 406 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, 507 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel 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.

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. More than a sufficient time has passed, and appellant has not

       1
          Appellant also pleaded guilty in the same proceeding to an information charging him with
misdemeanor theft. The theft charge also formed one of the grounds for revocation of appellant’s
supervision. Appellant appeals that conviction to this Court under Cause No. 13-12-158-CR.

                                                2
responded by filing 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 the entire record, including appellant’s judicial

confession and the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and counsel’s brief, and we

have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d

at 827–28 (“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”). We agree that there is no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

                                  III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

       In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney 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.) (“[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. Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s

judgment to appellant within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, and to advise

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the court of criminal



                                            3
appeals.2 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).




                                                            _______________________
                                                            NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                            Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
25th day of July, 2013.




        2
           No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Hernandez 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 or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.
R. 68.3. Any petition for discretion review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 68.4. Id. R. 68.4.


                                                       4
