Full Opinion

NUMBERS 13-25-00641-CR, 13-25-00642-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG BETH RENE REGALADO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT OF ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca Appellant Beth Rene Regalado pleaded guilty to the offenses of theft of property valued greater than $2,500 but less than $30,000,1 a state jail felony, and burglary of habitation, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 31.03(e)(4)(A), 1 Though charged as the enhanced offense for theft of an elderly person, appellant ultimately pleaded to the offense as described above. 31.03(f)(3)(A), 30.02(c)(2). The trial court sentenced Regalado to two years’ imprisonment in state jail for the theft offense to run concurrently with ten years’ imprisonment for the burglary offense, suspended the sentences, and placed her on community supervision for five years for both offenses. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.053(a). The State filed a motion to revoke, and on October 24, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Following testimony, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision for both offenses and sentenced her to fifteen months in the state jail division for the theft offense to run concurrently with a sentence of two years for the burglary of habitation offense with credit for time served. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in either case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. I. ANDERS BRIEF Counsel states in his briefs that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and that “there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised” on appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 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.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 2 counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has in both causes: (1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her rights to file a pro se response,2 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 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. Appellant did not file a motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record and did not file a pro se response in either cause. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record in both cases and counsel’s briefs, and we have found no arguable reversible error. 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 it considered the issues raised in the brief 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 509. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed 2 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 3 motions to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw in both cases. Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review in both cases, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). IV. CONCLUSION The trial court’s judgments are affirmed. YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 6th day of August, 2026. 3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review 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 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 4