Ricardo Tati Santiesteban v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-20-00531-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
RICARDO TATI SANTIESTEBAN, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 25th District Court
of Gonzales County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Appellant Ricardo Tati Santiesteban pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated
(third or more offense), a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2).
Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph in the indictment noting a prior
conviction of a felony, increasing appellant’s offense level to a second-degree felony. See
id. § 12.42(a). The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years’ incarceration in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ), suspended the
sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently,
the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision, and appellant pleaded true to
all nine of the State’s allegations. The trial court revoked appellant’s community
supervision and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in the TDCJ.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,
an Anders 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
2
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant’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 he: (1) notified appellant that counsel filed an Anders 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) supplied appellant with a form motion for pro se access to
the appellate record that includes the Court’s mailing address, instructions to file the
motion within ten days, and only requires appellant’s signature and the date. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and appellant
has not filed a pro se response. 1
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders 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 Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
1 On March 26, 2021, we granted appellant’s motion for pro se access to the appellate record. We
ruled that appellant would have thirty days from the date that he received his copy of the record to file a pro
se response with this Court. The trial court notified this Court that appellant received a copy of the appellate
record on April 2, 2021. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response.
3
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 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. 2 See TEX.
R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the
10th day of February, 2022.
2 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See
id. R. 68.4.
4