Alexandra Renee Mireles v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-26-00047-CR, 13-26-00048-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ALEXANDRA RENEE MIRELES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT
OF KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Alexandra Renee Mireles pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated

assault, a third-degree felony, enhanced by appellant’s habitual felony offender status in
trial court cause number 22-CRF-0473. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.42, 22.02. On the

same day, appellant pleaded guilty to continuous family violence, a first-degree felony,

enhanced by appellant’s habitual felony offender status in trial court cause number 23-

CRF-0058. 2 See id. §§ 12.42, 25.11. In both causes, the trial court placed appellant on

deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of five years.

On September 25, 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community

supervision and to adjudicate her guilt in 22-CRF-0473, alleging that appellant violated

fifteen conditions of her community supervision. On the same day, the State filed a motion

to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate her guilt in 23-CRF-0058,

alleging that appellant violated thirteen conditions of her community supervision.

Appellant entered pleas of “true” to all allegations except Count 7 raised in the State’s

motion to revoke in both causes. After conducting a hearing on each cause, the trial court

found all the allegations true, revoked appellant’s deferred adjudication community

supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to twenty-five years’ imprisonment

in both cases, ordered to run concurrently. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed

an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and motion to withdraw with this Court in each cause, stating that her review

1 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-26-00047-CR.

2 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-26-00048-CR.

2
of both records yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be

predicated. See id. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a

professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on

appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.

proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points

of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and

procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112

S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that in each cause she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings;

(3) informed appellant of her rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to

filing those responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is

frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate

record that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion

within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. In both cases, appellant filed neither a timely motion

seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so.

Appellant did not file a pro se response in either case.

3
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in each cause, and we

have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,

the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel in both causes. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within

five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this

opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise her of her right to file a

petition for discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these

cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.
R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4
V. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of June, 2026.

5