Raymond Corey Soto v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00005-CR
Raymond Corey SOTO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR6115
Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 27, 2021
AFFIRMED
Appellant Raymond Corey Soto appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community
supervision. Because we conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
On February 22, 2018, Soto pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of cruelty to a non-
livestock animal and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison. On August 21, 2018, the
trial court suspended execution of Soto’s sentence and placed Soto on community supervision for
five years. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision and a first
04-20-00005-CR
amended motion to revoke community supervision. On December 13, 2019, the trial court revoked
Soto’s community supervision. Soto appealed.
On appeal, Soto’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief stating he conducted a
professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be advanced
on Soto’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With citations to the record
and legal authority, counsel explains why he concluded the appeal is without merit. Counsel states
he thoroughly reviewed the record in the underlying criminal proceeding, as well as the record of
the revocation hearing. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional
evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–
13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel provided Soto with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and
informed Soto of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, Soto requested a copy of the
appellate record and obtained the same from the Bexar County District Clerk. See id.; Nichols v.
State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d
176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Thereafter, we set the deadline for Soto to
file a pro se brief. Soto did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible
error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment
-2-
04-20-00005-CR
is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns,
924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Soto wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Soto must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Soto must file a pro
se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the
later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
-3-