Description: Gutierrez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief with this court representing that
she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds
to be advanced on Gutierrez’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With
citations to the record and legal authority, counsel explains why she concluded the appeal is
04-17-00312-CR
- 2 -
without merit. Counsel states she reviewed the indictment and evidence adduced at trial, 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. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel provided Gutierrez with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw
and informed Gutierrez 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, counsel advised Gutierrez to file
a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record and enclosed a form motion for
that purpose. See id; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no
pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no
pet.). Thereafter, we set deadlines for Gutierrez to file any motion for the record and any pro se
brief. Although Gutierrez requested access to the appellate record, Gutierrez did not file a pro se
brief.
Outcome: 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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted.1
