Teodoro Vasquez v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00357-CR
Teodoro VASQUEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10-2314-CR
Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Teodoro Vasquez pled guilty to indecency with a child by contact and received deferred
adjudication community supervision for a term of six years. The State filed a motion to
adjudicate guilt and revoke his community supervision alleging that Vasquez violated two
conditions of his community supervision, Condition No. 28 by failing to participate and
cooperate in sex offender treatment and Condition No. 35 by having a third party communication
about the victim. Vasquez pled “not true” to both alleged violations. After an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court found that Vasquez violated Condition No. 28. The court adjudicated
04-12-00357-CR
Vasquez guilty and revoked his community supervision. The court sentenced Vasquez to twelve
years’ imprisonment and assessed $502 in court costs. Vasquez now appeals. We affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
Vasquez’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a
motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Vasquez with a copy of the brief and motion
to withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief.
See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also
Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Vasquez did
not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error
and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
See id. 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 Vasquez 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 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
-2-
04-12-00357-CR
forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-