# Jose Aguilera v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · July 7, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2815107

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** July 7, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2815107

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous

## Opinion text

Opinion issued July 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00726-CR
———————————
JOSE AGUILERA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1406622

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Jose Aguilera, guilty of the felony offense of

aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. §29.03 (West 2011). The jury

sentenced appellant to eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 29.03(b); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 2013). Appellant timely

filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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. See Anders, 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.).

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,

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

2
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 Emily Detoto must immediately send appellant the required

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

6.5(c).

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2815107. Public record. Not legal advice.