Background
Jonathan Trevino was convicted of continuous violence against the family and obstruction or retaliation. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for six years.
After the State moved to revoke community supervision, Trevino pleaded true to all but one alleged violation. The trial court granted the motion, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison. His appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the record presented no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal, and Trevino did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently examined the record and counsel’s brief, as required when appointed counsel submits an Anders brief. It found no arguable reversible error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The court also granted counsel’s original and amended motions to withdraw and directed counsel to provide Trevino with the opinion and judgment and advise him of his right to seek discretionary review. It denied counsel’s request to dismiss the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently review the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The court found counsel’s brief professionally sufficient and identified no arguable reversible error in Trevino’s revocation and adjudication proceedings.
- The judgment was affirmed, counsel was permitted to withdraw, and Trevino retained the right to seek discretionary review.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s assessment does not end the matter; the appellate court must conduct its own review of the record before affirming.
The decision also underscores counsel’s post-withdrawal obligation to notify the defendant about the appellate ruling and the right to pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.