Facio
v.
State

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, TexasDec 4, 2018
No. 04-18-00009-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2018)

No. 04-18-00009-CR

12-05-2018

Jose Valentine FACIO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee


MEMORANDUM OPINION

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR1159
Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

A jury found appellant Jose Valentine Facio guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Facio elected to have the trial court assess punishment in the event the jury found him guilty. The trial court sentenced Facio to twenty-five years' confinement.

Facio's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Facio was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to obtain a copy of the appellate record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appointed counsel also provided Facio with a form which he could sign, date, and file with this court in order to obtain a copy of the record. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20. Facio filed neither a request for the record nor a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Facio's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Facio wish to seek further review of this case in 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 after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is 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 must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice Do Not Publish