Jason M. Sifuentes v. State ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-11-00718-CR
Jason M. SIFUENTES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011CR4720
Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 6, 2012
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Jason Sifuentes was placed on community supervision for a period of three years after he
pled nolo contendere to the charge of failing to register as a sex offender. When the State later
moved to revoke his supervision, Sifuentes pled true to violating two conditions of his
community supervision. The trial court revoked Sifuentes’s community supervision and
sentenced him to three years in prison. Sifuentes timely appealed.
04-11-00718-CR
Sifuentes’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Counsel certifies she provided Sifuentes a copy of the brief and motion to
withdraw and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Although
given an opportunity to file a pro se brief, Sifuentes has not done so.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Sifuentes’s counsel and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996,
no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Sifuentes 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 after either this opinion is rendered or
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 Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review
must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
id. R. 68.4.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-