Rene Cruz v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-25-00354-CR,
13-25-00355-CR, 13-25-00356-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

RENE CRUZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT
OF KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Appellant Rene Cruz pleaded guilty to the offense of continuous sexual abuse of

a child under age seventeen, a first-degree felony in appellate cause 13-25-00354-CR,

attempted indecency with a child by contact, a third-degree felony in appellate cause 13-

25-00355-CR, and sexual assault of a child, a second-degree felony in appellate cause
12-00356-CR. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 21.02, 21.11. Appellant was placed on deferred

adjudication community supervision for eight years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate

appellant’s guilt in each cause alleging several violations of the conditions of community

supervision. The trial court found the State’s allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant

guilty in each cause, revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision in each

cause, and sentenced him to life incarceration for the offense of continuous sexual abuse

of a child, ten years’ incarceration for the attempted indecency with a child offense, and

twenty years’ incarceration for the sexual assault of a child offense. Appellant’s court-

appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in each cause stating that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We

affirm the trial court’s judgments.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed briefs and motions to withdraw with this Court in each cause, stating that her review

of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be

predicated in these causes. See id. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as

each presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to advance on appeal in each cause. 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

2
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 judgments. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that, in each cause, 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; 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. Appellant neither filed a timely motion seeking pro

se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so in any of

these causes. Appellant did not file a pro se response in these causes.1

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 records and counsel’s briefs in each cause, and we

have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

1 Appellant filed a “Motion for New Appointed Appeal Counsel” in each cause. We deny these

motions.

3
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 in each cause. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions 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 judgments to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a

petition for discretionary review in each cause.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).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
2nd day of April, 2026.

2 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
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.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

4