Noel Martinez Balderas v. State ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00862-CR
Noel Martinez BALDERAS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR7108
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellant Noel Martinez Balderas was indicted for possession of a controlled substance—
methamphetamine less than one gram. Balderas entered a plea of nolo contendere and the trial
court placed him on deferred adjudication probation for a period of two years and assessed a fine
in the amount of $1,000.00. After three motions to adjudicate and revoke Balderas’s probations,
the State again alleged Balderas violated condition number five of his probation, namely that he
failed to report to the supervision officer, in person, for the months of January, February, March,
April, May, July, and August, 2014. On November 21, 2014, Balderas entered a plea of true and
04-14-00862-CR
the trial court found the allegations to be true. The trial court subsequently adjudicated Balderas’s
guilt, sentenced him to eighteen months’ confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a fine in the amount of $1,000.00. Balderas timely
filed a notice of appeal.
COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF
Balderas’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel
also filed a motion to withdraw. In appellate counsel’s brief, he recites the relevant facts with
citations to the record, analyzes the record with respect to the evidence supporting the conditions
the trial court found Balderas to have violated, and accompanies the analysis with relevant legal
authorities. Counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Nichols v. State, 954
S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
We conclude the brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see
also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Balderas with a copy of the brief
and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Balderas of his right to review the record and file
a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177
n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court also advised Balderas of his right to
request a copy of the record and file a brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Balderas has neither filed a brief nor requested a copy of the record.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the record and court-appointed counsel’s Anders brief, we agree with
Balderas’s court-appointed appellate counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.
-2-
04-14-00862-CR
Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to
withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Balderas wish to seek 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 he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2)
the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this
court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk
of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id.
R. 68.4.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-