Jesse Santibanez v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued August 27, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00927-CR ——————————— JESSE SANTIBANEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 175th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2016-CR-11687

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In accordance with a plea bargain with the State, Jesse Santibanez pleaded

guilty to the offense of failure to stop and render aid, and was sentenced on August

21, 2018 to 7 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, and assessed a fine of $1,200. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 550.023(c). On appeal, Santibanez’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,

812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the

record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel advised Santibanez of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Santibanez of

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Santibanez did not request

access to the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

2 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that

an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal

by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Debra L. Parker must immediately send Santibanez the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3