Erick Kevin Beltran-Tovar v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00040-CR

ERICK KEVIN BELTRAN-TOVAR, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas1 Trial Court No. CR14462, Honorable Bryan T. Bufkin, Presiding

July 7, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California,2 through which Erick Kevin Beltran-Tovar’s (Appellant)

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. We apply the Second Court’s precedent to the extent it conflicts with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). court-appointed counsel asserts this appeal is frivolous. We agree, grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In November 2021, Appellant pleaded guilty to the second-degree offense of

sexual assault of a child.3 He was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision

for a period of ten years. His community supervision was subject to certain terms and

conditions.

In October 2025, the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication, alleging

Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to pay

certain required amounts, failing to complete required community service hours, failing to

avoid contact with the victim of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, and failing to pay

the required sex offender fee for several months.

At the hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded true to three of the State’s

allegations, including that he contacted the victim of the underlying offense, and not true

to the remaining allegations. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found all the

allegations true, adjudicated Appellant guilty, and sentenced him as noted. It also

assessed a $10,000 fine against Appellant.

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

complying with Anders in which he asserts Appellant’s appeal is frivolous because the

case reveals “no grounds that could be argued non-frivolously on appeal.” See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744–45. In accordance with Kelly v. State, counsel sent Appellant a copy of

3 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011.

2 the motion to withdraw and brief; informed him of his right to file a pro se response, to

review the record, to seek discretionary review pro se should this Court deny relief; and

provided to him a copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds for relief. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).4 This Court provided Appellant the opportunity to file a pro

se response to counsel’s Anders brief, but he did not do so. The State did not favor us

with a brief.

After an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw and a brief

fulfilling the Anders requirements, we must independently examine the record for any

arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant’s behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only after examining the record and

independently concluding that no arguable ground may be raised may we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351, 102

L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). Here, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal; we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See

4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.

3 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We accordingly grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Do not publish.