Gerardo Amador Reyes v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-25-00607-CR, 13-25-00608-CR,
13-25-00609-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GERARDO AMADOR REYES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 148TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

In the first case, trial court number 25FC-0535E, appellate number 13-25-00607-

CR, appellant Gerardo Amador Reyes was accused of evading arrest or detention with a

motor vehicle, a third degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(b)(2)(A). In the second

case, trial court number 25FC-2899E, appellate number 13-25-00608-CR, appellant was
accused of assault on a public servant, a third degree felony. See id. § 22.01(b)(1). In the

third case, trial court number 25FC-4331E, appellate number 13-25-00609-CR, appellant

was accused of stalking, a third degree felony. See id. § 42.072(b). In separate

agreements, appellant pleaded guilty to each offense and was placed on community

supervision for eight years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 42A.101(a), 42A.103.

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke in all three cases. In the first and

second case, the State alleged that appellant committed two violations of his community

supervision. See id. arts. 42A.104(a), 42A.108(a). In the third case, the State alleged

appellant committed four violations of his community supervision. See id. arts.

42A.104(a), 42A.108(a). After a contested hearing on all three motions, the trial court

found all of the allegations to be “true.” See id. art. 42A.108(b). In each case, the trial

court revoked appellant’s supervision; adjudicated him guilty of the underlying offense;

sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment; and ordered the sentence to run concurrently

with the other sentences. See id. arts. 42A.108(b), 42A.110.

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 the trial court’s judgments.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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

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

of the record 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

2
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 case 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 his rights to file pro se response, to review the record prior to

filing that response, 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. 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 these cases, despite the passage of ample time,

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.

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 briefs, and we have found

3
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

permission to withdraw as counsel in each case. 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 judgments to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a

petition for discretionary review. 1 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).

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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
IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

JENNY CRON
Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of April, 2026.

5