Draven Rene Reyes v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-23-00796-CR
Draven Rene REYES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 22-1382-CR-C
Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 6, 2024
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Appellant Draven Rene Reyes was charged with murder and aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon arising out of a shooting on or about April 4, 2022, that resulted in the death of one
person and bodily injury to a second person. A jury found Reyes guilty on both counts. At the
punishment phase, Reyes pled true to prior adjudications on three felony offenses and commitment
to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department which were used for enhancement of punishment. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.13(d). Following the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced
04-23-00796-CR
Reyes to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment on the murder count and fifty years’ imprisonment on
the aggravated assault/deadly weapon count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Reyes appealed. His court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, and the State
filed a brief waiver. Reyes did not request a copy of the record or file a pro se brief.
COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF
Reyes’s court-appointed appellate counsel’s brief contained a professional evaluation of
the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel also filed a
motion to withdraw. The brief recited the relevant facts with citations to the record. The brief
presented a thorough review of the appellate record and a careful analysis of potential appellate
issues. Counsel concluded, “there are no arguable or reversible issues on appeal.” See Nichols v.
State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
Appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see
also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Reyes with a copy of the brief
and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and he informed Reyes of his right to review the record and file
a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided Reyes with a draft pro se motion
to request a free copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014).
CONCLUSION
Having independently reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we conclude there are no
arguable grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgments,
-2-
04-23-00796-CR
and we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924
S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
FURTHER REVIEW
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing
himself, Reyes may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals
within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing
or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, 68.3(a).
The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-