Christopher Ray Olivarez v. State
12-15-00108-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 29, 2016Background
- Christopher Ray Olivarez was convicted of burglary of a habitation and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance; sentences of 20 and 25 years were imposed to run concurrently.
- Appellate counsel concluded there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal and filed an Anders/Gainous brief and a motion to withdraw.
- The court independently reviewed the appellate record as required under Anders and related Texas authorities.
- No pro se brief was filed by Olivarez within the allotted time after receiving counsel’s brief.
- The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the record after its independent review and carried the withdrawal motion with the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s Anders/Gainous brief properly raises that no arguable issues exist | Counsel for Olivarez certified diligent review and asserted no arguable issues | State contended counsel complied and no reversible error exists | Court held the brief complied with Anders/Gainous and independent review found no reversible error |
| Whether the record contains reversible error warranting reversal | Olivarez raised no specific appellate issues (no pro se brief) | State argued the record supports the convictions | Court held no reversible error and affirmed the judgments |
| Whether appellate counsel may be permitted to withdraw | Counsel moved to withdraw after filing Anders brief | State supported withdrawal after court review | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw |
| Whether Olivarez was properly informed of post-opinion appellate rights and deadlines | Olivarez was to be notified and given opportunity to file PDR | State noted procedural requirements must be followed | Court ordered counsel to send opinion and advise Olivarez of PDR rights and deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues when seeking withdrawal)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (Texas practice for Anders-type submissions)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance on Anders-style briefs)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (appellate court’s duty to independently review record under Anders)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (standards for counsel withdrawal and required notices to appellant)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural precedent related to counsel withdrawal)