Aureliano B. Esquivel, Jr. v. State
11-17-00046-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Aureliano B. Esquivel, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine (state jail felony) and received community supervision under a plea agreement.
- The State filed an application to revoke Esquivel’s community supervision.
- After a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found most allegations true, revoked community supervision, and imposed the original two‑year confinement sentence plus a $1,000 fine.
- Appellant appealed; court‑appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and provided Appellant the record and notice of rights.
- The appellant did not file a pro se response within the time granted by the court.
- The court conducted an independent review under Anders/Schulman and concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders procedures | Esquivel implicitly relies on appointed counsel to raise any nonfrivolous issues | Counsel argues the appeal is frivolous and followed Anders procedures (provided records and notice) | Court held counsel complied with Anders and related Texas authorities |
| Whether any reversible error exists in revocation proceedings | Appellant raises no pro se grounds; no persuasive claim in record | State contends evidence supported revocation and sentence was proper | Court found no reversible error after independent review |
| Whether new counsel should be appointed to brief issues | Appellant did not request new counsel or file response | Counsel argues no arguable issues exist, so remand for new counsel unnecessary | Court declined to remand; dismissed appeal as frivolous |
| Whether appellant was advised of appellate remedies | Appellant did not assert lack of notice | Counsel provided opinion, records, and notification of right to file PDR | Court noted counsel must advise re: PDR and reiterated appellant’s right to file one |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel must file brief raising anything arguable or state the appeal is frivolous and provide client the record and notice)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel files Anders-style brief)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (procedures for handling Anders briefs and pro se responses)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Texas guidance on Anders/Schulman procedures)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural precedent cited for counsel withdrawal and appellate review)