Sean Rodriguez Osborn v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-20-00190-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
SEAN RODRIGUEZ OSBORN, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 216th District Court
of Kerr County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
Appellant Sean Rodriguez Osborn appeals his conviction of two counts of
aggravated assault of a public servant, with a deadly weapon finding, a first-degree felony
offense.1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b)(2)(B). The jury sentenced Osborn to
1 This cause was tried to the jury along with three other charged offenses. Those offenses include,
appellate cause number 13-20-00189-CR, which is for possession of a controlled substance, and two other
concurrent terms of twenty years’ confinement. Osborn’s court-appointed attorney has
filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.2
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Osborn’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In 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–Edinburg 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) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Osborn’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Osborn’s counsel has also informed this Court that Osborn
has been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2)
provided with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed of his rights to file a pro se response,
causes not before this Court and not at issue in this appeal.
2 The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas transferred this cause to our Court pursuant
to a docket equalization order from the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2
review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we
conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided with a form motion for pro se access
to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20, 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 Osborn has not filed a pro se response.3
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 id. at 827–28 (“Due 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.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Osborn’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.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from
3 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the 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
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 this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to Osborn and to advise him of his right to file a petition
for discretionary review.4 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).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
JAIME TIJERINA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
28th day of October, 2021.
4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Osborn 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 was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A 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 Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4