John Pablo Rios v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00286-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00284-CR NO. 01-25-00286-CR ——————————— JOHN PABLO RIOS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 23-CR-2224, 23-CR-2226

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant John Pablo Rios pled guilty to first-degree-felony manufacture or

delivery of a controlled substance (Case No. 01-25-00284-CR) and third-degree-

felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Case No. 01-25-00286-CR).

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(d); TEX. PENAL CODE § 46.04(e). After a punishment hearing to the bench, the trial court assessed punishment of

twenty years’ confinement for the former offense and five years’ confinement for

the latter, with the sentences to run concurrently. Rios appealed.

On appeal in each case, Rios’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible

error and that the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In his briefs, counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the records and

is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193

S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s briefs

meet the Anders requirements because they present professional evaluations of the

records and supply the Court with references to the records and legal authorities.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978).

Further, Rios’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed copies of the

motions to withdraw and Anders briefs to Rios and informed him of his right to

access the appellate records and file pro se responses. See Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. This

Court also notified Rios at his last known address of his right to access the records

2 and file responses, and it provided Rios with form motions to access the records.

See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321–22.

Rios did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief in either case. The

State waived its right to file a response to the Anders brief in both cases.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in these appeals. See

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the

records, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeals are

frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—not

counsel—determines, after full examination of the proceedings, whether appeal is

wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s motions to

withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Appointed counsel still has a duty to

inform Rios of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue

discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178

S.W.3d at 827. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 &

n.6.

3 Attorney Mark W. Stevens must immediately send the required notices and

file copies of those notices with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.

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