Xavier Rena Solis v. State ( 2017 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Nos. 07-17-00036-CR
07-17-00037-CR
07-17-00038-CR
07-17-00039-CR
07-17-00040-CR
XAVIER RENA SOLIS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 27088-B, Honorable David L. Gleason,1 Presiding
November 30, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
On January 4, 2017, appellant, Xavier Rena Solis, entered an open plea of guilty
to one count of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, 2 and four counts of
1
Senior District Judge sitting by assignment.
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04 (West 2016).
aggravated robbery.3 Appellant pled “true” to using or exhibiting a deadly weapon
during the commission of the robbery offenses. After hearing evidence, the trial court
accepted appellant’s guilty plea, found appellant guilty of each of the charged offenses,
and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration for the evading arrest or detention
conviction and thirty-five years’ incarceration for each of the aggravated robbery
convictions. Subsequently, appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the
representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel
certifies that he has diligently reviewed the records and, in his opinion, the records
reflect no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed
why, under the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s
judgments. Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him
a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to
file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to
file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant did not, however, file a pro
se response. The State did not file a brief.
3
See id. § 29.03 (West 2011).
2
In the present case, appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to each count alleged in
the indictment and a plea of “true” concerning the deadly weapon allegations. By his
Anders brief, counsel discusses three areas where reversible error may have occurred
but concludes that the appeals are frivolous. We have independently examined the
record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in
the trial court which might support these appeals but, like counsel, we have found no
such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300
(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
After carefully reviewing the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude
there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We therefore affirm the trial court’s
judgments and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
4
Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgments together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature,
does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3