Jesse Santibanez v. State ( 2019 )

Opinion issued August 27, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00927-CR
———————————
JESSE SANTIBANEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 175th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-11687
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In accordance with a plea bargain with the State, Jesse Santibanez pleaded
guilty to the offense of failure to stop and render aid, and was sentenced on August
21, 2018 to 7 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, and assessed a fine of $1,200. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 550.023(c).
On appeal, Santibanez’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the
record and 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 advised Santibanez of his right to access the record and provided him
with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Santibanez of
his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Santibanez did not request
access to the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and 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,
2
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). We note that
an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal
by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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 Debra L. Parker must immediately send Santibanez the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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