Raul D. Sarabia, Jr. v. the State of Texas
Date Filed2022-12-20
Docket08-22-00064-CR
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
RAUL SARABIA, JR, § No. 08-22-00064-CR
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 207th Judicial District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Comal County, Texas
Appellee. § (TC# CR2018-305)
OPINION
On February 10, 2020, Appellant entered a plea bargain agreement, pleading guilty to
aggravated kidnapping and evading arrest in a motor vehicle, and pleading true to an enhancement
and deadly weapon finding in Comal County.1 Pursuant to the agreement, the trial court sentenced
Appellant to fifteen years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw his plea as involuntary. After a
hearing on the voluntariness of his plea, the trial court denied the request.
1
This case was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the
Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX.GOVāT CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals
to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3.
I. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellantās court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738,87 S. Ct. 1396
,18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman,252 S.W.3d 403
, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (āIn Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance āarguableā 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.ā); High v. State,573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel notified the Court in writing that he delivered a copy of counselās brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and he advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State,436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (setting forth duties of
counsel).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counselās brief. We agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
II. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
We believe Appellantās counsel has substantially complied with the requirements of
Anders and Kelly. Therefore, we grant counselās motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318ā20. No substitute counsel will be appointed. In the event Appellant
wishes 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.
2
Any petition for discretionary review must comply with Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Additionally, any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court
of Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion
for rehearing that is overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, 68.3.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm Appellantās conviction and sentence and grant counselās motion to withdraw.
SANDEE B. MARION, Chief Justice (Ret.)
December 20, 2022
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Alley, and Marion, C.J.(Ret.)
Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)
(Do Not Publish)
3