Domingo Trevino III v. the State of Texas
13-20-00419-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Appellant Domingo Trevino III had probation revoked for assault of a family/household member (third-degree felony) and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.
- Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, stating no arguable grounds for appeal after reviewing the record.
- Counsel certified compliance with Anders notice requirements and provided the record and filings to Trevino; Trevino did not file a pro se response.
- This Court performed the required independent review of the entire record under Anders/Penson to determine whether the appeal was wholly frivolous.
- The Court found no reversible error, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
- The Court ordered counsel to notify Trevino of the opinion and his right to seek discretionary review; no substitute counsel will be appointed for further review.
Issues
| Issue | Trevino's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel's Anders brief and motion to withdraw complied with governing standards | Counsel (on Trevino's behalf) asserted there are no arguable grounds and provided required notices and record access | Counsel complied with Anders/Schulman/Kelly requirements; withdrawal appropriate | Court found counsel complied and granted motion to withdraw |
| Whether the record contains reversible error warranting reversal of probation revocation | Trevino raised no pro se issues; no arguable errors were advanced | The State maintained the record shows no reversible error and urged affirmance | Court conducted independent review (Penson) and found no reversible error; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standard for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on content and sufficiency of Anders briefs)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedural requirements for counsel and appellate courts in Anders contexts)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (notice requirements to appellant when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals meets Rule 47.1 by stating it reviewed record for reversible error)