Randy Lee Romero Jr. v. State ( 2011 )

NUMBER 13-10-00181-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RANDY LEE ROMERO JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 252nd District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1
Appellant, Randy Lee Romero Jr., pleaded guilty to the offense of forgery, a state
jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(b), (d) (West Supp. 2010). Pursuant to a
plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Romero on community
supervision for a term of three years and assessed a $500 fine.
1
This case is before this Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).
The State then filed a motion to revoke Romero’s deferred adjudication
community supervision alleging that he had violated five terms of his community
supervision. Romero pleaded ―true‖ to four of the alleged violations. After hearing
evidence, the trial court found that Romero had violated four terms of his community
supervision, revoked his community supervision, found him guilty of the offense of
forgery, and sentenced him to two years’ confinement in the state jail. The trial court
certified Romero’s right to appeal, and this appeal followed. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Romero’s appellate
counsel has filed a brief with this Court stating that after diligently reviewing the record
and researching the law, he has found no reversible error committed by the trial court
and no arguable grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although
counsel’s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds
to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(AIn 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 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), Romero’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
2
has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)
served copies of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Romero; and (3)
informed Romero of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 2 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Romero
has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
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 the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we
have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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 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. Accordingly,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Romero’s attorney has 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.) (AIf an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he
2
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.@ In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.@) (citations omitted)). 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 the opinion and judgment to Romero and advise him of his
right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 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).
_____________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
15th day of December, 2011.
3
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Romero 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 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 is overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Effective
September 1, 2011, any 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
4