Xavier Rena Solis v. State
07-17-00039-CR
Tex. App.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Appellant Xavier Rena Solis pled guilty to one count of evading arrest with a motor vehicle and four counts of aggravated robbery, and pleaded true to deadly-weapon enhancements.
- Trial court accepted the pleas and sentenced Solis to 10 years for evading and 35 years for each aggravated robbery.
- Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal; appellate counsel was court-appointed and filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief.
- Counsel certified he had reviewed the record, identified no reversible error, complied with procedural notice obligations to Solis, and explained why no issues merited appeal.
- The court of appeals independently reviewed the record, found no non-frivolous preserved issues, affirmed the trial court judgments, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
- The opinion reminds counsel of a ministerial duty (per In re Schulman) to send the appellant the opinion and notice of discretionary-review rights after the opinion issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty pleas | Solis implicitly argues (by appeal) potential defects in plea or sentencing | Prosecutor/State maintains pleas were knowing, voluntary, and supported by record | Court found no preserved non-frivolous challenge; pleas accepted and convictions affirmed |
| Deadly-weapon plea true finding | Solis could contest the deadly-weapon finding | State relied on plea of true and record basis | Court treated plea of true as valid; no reversible error identified |
| Adequacy of Anders brief and counsel withdrawal | Solis might claim counsel failed to preserve issues or notify him | Counsel asserts full compliance with Anders/High/Kelly obligations and provided notices | Court independently reviewed record, found Anders brief adequate, no arguable issues, and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate courts must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas standards for Anders briefing and counsel’s duties)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (discussing counsel’s obligations when seeking withdrawal)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifies appointed counsel’s obligations on filing motion to withdraw with Anders brief)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (authority on frivolous appeal review)