Saul Vanegas v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00238-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SAUL VANEGAS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 347TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Appellant Saul Vanegas pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, third or more

offense, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b). On March 22, 2018,

the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty, sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment,

suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for ten years. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.053(a). The State filed a motion to revoke in May
2018, alleging appellant violated various terms and conditions of his community

supervision; the trial court denied the motion but directed appellant to serve a term of

confinement in the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. See id. art.

42A.051(b). The State filed another motion to revoke in August 2023; the trial court again

denied the motion but ordered that appellant serve thirty days in the Nueces County Jail.

See id.

The State filed a third motion to revoke on December 22, 2023, alleging that

appellant violated his community supervision terms by, among other things, committing

the criminal offense of terroristic threat, using methamphetamine, and failing to report to

his probation officer. At a hearing, the State abandoned the terroristic threat allegation

and appellant pleaded true to the remaining allegations. The trial court revoked

appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, per

the State’s recommendation, with credit for time served.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We

affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Counsel states in his brief that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and that

“no non-frivolous basis for appeal exists.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as

it presents 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.

2
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),

counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (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 his rights to file a pro se

response,1 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. In this case, appellant did not file a motion seeking pro se

access to the appellate record and 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 appeal 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

1 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
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

a motion 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.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.2 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).

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review 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 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
IV. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
10th day of July, 2025.

5