Jose Antonio Navejar v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00452-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOSE ANTONIO NAVEJAR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT
OF DEWITT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

On June 13, 2024, appellant Jose Antonio Navejar pleaded guilty to aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 22.02(a)(2), (b). The trial court deferred Navejar’s adjudication and placed him on

community supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.101. The

State of Texas filed its second amended motion to adjudicate guilt and petition for
revocation of probated sentence on August 6, 2025, and at the motion hearing Navejar

admitted that he had violated certain terms of his community supervision. The trial court

revoked Navejar’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to

twelve years’ imprisonment.

On September 8, 2025, Navejar filed a notice of appeal. Navejar’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. 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

Navejar that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided Navejar

with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed Navejar of his rights to file a pro se response,1

1 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the

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 Navejar with a form motion for pro

se access to the appellate record that only requires his 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, Navejar filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se

access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. Nor did he 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

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, Navejar’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

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, 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 at 409 n.23.

3
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 Navejar, 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).

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
30th day of April, 2026.

2 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