Xavier Torres v. The State of Texas Appeal from 214th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-20-00403-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG XAVIER TORRES, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria Appellant Xavier Torres appeals a judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 19.04, 12.33. Torres’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm. I. ANDERS BRIEF Torres’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support in which he states that he has carefully reviewed the entire record in detail and has found no non-frivolous issues. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406– 07 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“ln Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Torres’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Torres’s counsel also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Torres that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, and provided a copy of each to him; (2) informed Torres of his right to file a pro se response and to review the record preparatory to filing that response; (3) informed Torres of his right to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Torres with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only his signature and the date, with instruction to return the motion within ten days of the letter 2 from appellate counsel, and provided this Court’s address. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and Torres has not filed a pro se response. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, Torres’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Torres 3 and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). IV. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment. NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 5th day of August, 2021. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Torres 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 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4. 1 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
