Oscar Jimenez v. State ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00596-CR
Oscar JIMENEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001CR3903W
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 1, 2011
AFFIRMED
Based on Oscar Jimenez’s plea of true to violating the terms of his community
supervision, the trial court revoked Jimenez’s community supervision and sentenced him to four
years imprisonment in the underlying cause. Jimenez’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief
containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Jimenez
with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief.
04-10-00596-CR
See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (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.). Jimenez filed a pro se
brief asserting that the sentence imposed by the trial court upon revocation was cruel and unusual
punishment that is constitutionally prohibited. The State responded to Jimenez’s pro se brief
contending: (1) his argument with regard to cruel and unusual punishment had not been
preserved for appellate review; and (2) the sentence was based on an agreement between the
State and the defense.
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, Jimenez’s pro se brief, and the State’s brief,
we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues
raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is
frivolous). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Should Jimenez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Jimenez must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or Jimenez 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 this opinion or the
last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-