Case Information

*1 NUMBER 13-20-00419-CR COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG DOMINGO TREVINO III, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant Domingo Trevino III appeals a judgment revoking his probation for assault of a family/household member, a third-degree felony. P ENAL C ODE NN . § 22.01(b)(2)(A). The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years’ imprisonment. § 12.34. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 *2 (1967). We affirm.

I. NDERS B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an 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–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Trevino’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that she (1) notified appellant that counsel filed an brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a copy of the record. U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.

II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW

Upon receiving an 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 counsel’s brief and the entire record, and we have found nothing that would support a finding of reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of 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.”); , 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW

In accordance with , appellant’s counsel asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. , 386 U.S. at 744; , 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.)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. ^[1] See T EX . P. 48.4; Ex parte Owens S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. C ONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Do not publish. . R. A . P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

8th day of July, 2021.

[1] No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant seeks 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. EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX . R. A . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See . P. 68.4.