Jose Rufino Aguilar v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued December 20, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00653-CR
____________
JOSE RUFINO AGUILAR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1320433
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jose Rufino Aguilar, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon, without an agreed recommendation from the State
regarding punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial
court found appellant guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at 12 years’
confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that
appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and
therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of
error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell
v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief and the appellate
record to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record
and to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008). This Court also notified appellant of his right to file a response and the
deadline for doing so. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—
determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly
frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell,
193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by
reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no
arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court
of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send the notice required by
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the
Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4