Christian Gerardo Merancio v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00060-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

CHRISTIAN GERARDO MERANCIO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT
OF HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Appellant Christian Gerardo Merancio was charged with: escape while threatening

to use a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony (Count 1), see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 38.06(e); aggravated assault against a public servant, a first-degree felony (Count 2),

see id. § 22.02(b)(2)(B); two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a

second-degree felony (Counts 3 and 4), see id. § 22.02(b); fraudulent use or possession

of more than five but fewer than ten items of identifying information, a third-degree felony
(Count 5), see id. § 32.51(c)(2); credit card or debit card abuse, a state-jail felony (Count

6), see id. § 32.31; and criminal mischief causing pecuniary loss of $2,500 or more but

less than $30,000, a state-jail felony (Count 7), see id. § 28.03(b)(4)(A). Appellant pleaded

guilty to Counts 5 and 6 and not guilty to the remaining counts. After trial, the jury found

appellant guilty of all charged offenses. As to Counts 1 through 5, appellant was

sentenced to prison terms of fifty, forty-five, twenty, twenty, and ten years, respectively.

As to each of Counts 6 and 7, appellant was sentenced to twenty-four months in state

jail. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion for new trial in the trial

court arguing that appellant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a

hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Counsel has now filed a brief with this Court

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). We affirm.1

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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

“there are no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal.” 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, 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

1 This appeal was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth pursuant to an order

issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

2
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,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. 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

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.

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
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.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 judgment is affirmed.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of July, 2025.

3 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