Full Opinion

NUMBERS 13-26-00463-CR, 13-26-00464-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG JONATHON ANDREW SALINAS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT OF KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña On October 9, 2024, appellant Jonathon Andrew Salinas pleaded guilty to assault family violence and unlawful restraint, third-degree felonies enhanced by his habitual felony offender status, in trial court cause number 24-CRF-0445. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.42(d), 20.02(c)(2)(A), 22.01(b)(2)(B). On the same day, appellant pleaded guilty to continuous family violence, a third-degree felony enhanced by his habitual felony offender status, in trial court cause number 24-CRF-0422. 2 See id. §§ 12.42(d), 25.11(a), (e). In both causes, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years in both causes. On April 7, 2025, the State subsequently filed an amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in 24-CRF-0445, alleging that appellant violated eleven conditions of his community supervision. On the same day, the State filed an amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in 24-CRF-0422, alleging that appellant violated sixteen conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to each, and every violation alleged in the State’s motion in both causes. After conducting a hearing, the trial court amended the terms and conditions of his community supervision and imposed sanctions. On May 6, 2026, the State filed an amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in both causes. Appellant entered pleas of true to all allegations raised in the State’s motion in both causes. As to each cause, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed twenty-five years’ sentences in each cause, to run concurrently. 1 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-26-00464-CR. 2 This case pertains to appellate cause number 13-26-00463-CR. 2 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgement in each case. 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, stating that her review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents 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 judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that 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 responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; 3 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 this case, 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 brief, and we have found 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion 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 him of his 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 3 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 4 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). IV. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgments. L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 1st day of October, 2026. 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. and Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4. 5