Jose Rufino Aguilar v. State

Opinion issued December 20, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-12-00653-CR

____________

JOSE RUFINO AGUILAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1320433

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jose Rufino Aguilar, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated

robbery with a deadly weapon, without an agreed recommendation from the State

regarding punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial

court found appellant guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at 12 years’

confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that

appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore 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, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief and the appellate

record to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record

and to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). This Court also notified appellant of his right to file a response and the

deadline for doing so. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

2

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

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

grounds for review, and that therefore 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 court determines whether arguable grounds exist by

reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the 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 Bob Wicoff must immediately send the notice required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

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

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish.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

4