Isaac Benavidez v. State ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00494-CR
NO. 03-14-00495-CR
Isaac Benavidez, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 15,265 & 15,266
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In January 2014, appellant Isaac Benavidez pled guilty to four counts of intentional
serious bodily injury to a child and received ten years’ deferred adjudication probation. See Tex. Penal
Code § 22.04; Tex. Code Crim Proc. art. 42.12, § 3g. In May 2014, upon finding that appellant
had violated certain terms of his probation, the trial court revoked appellant’s deferred adjudication
and sentenced him to sixty years’ imprisonment on the first count and ten years’ imprisonment on
each of the remaining three counts, to run concurrently. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, §23.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel
has represented to the Court that he provided appellant with copies of the brief and accompanying
motions to withdraw; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se
brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and
provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the
mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Although appellant requested and
received the appellate record and additional time to file a pro se brief, that time has run and no
pro se brief has been filed.
We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might
arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal
is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment
of conviction.1
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
his 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. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court
overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with
the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with
this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this
Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded
to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
2
__________________________________________
David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland
Affirmed
Filed: July 14, 2015
Do Not Publish
3