Jerry Louis Zulaica v. State ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00048-CR
Jerry Louis ZULAICA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-CR-10438
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2019
AFFIRMED
On November 3, 2016, Jerry Louis Zulaica was charged by indictment with two counts.
The first count charged that Zulaica intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a child
who was fourteen years of age or younger, and the second count charged that Zulaica recklessly
caused bodily injury to a child who was fourteen years of age or younger. Zulaica then entered
into a plea-bargain agreement in which the State agreed to proceed only on Count I, to recommend
deferred adjudication to the trial court, and to a fine of $1,500.00. On February 13, 2017, Zulaica
pled no contest and was placed on community supervision deferred adjudication for a period of
04-18-00048-CR
two years and fined $1,500.00 in accordance with his plea-bargain agreement. On May 30, 2017,
the State filed a motion to enter an adjudication of guilt and revoke Zulaica’s community
supervision, alleging that he had failed to report to his supervision officer in person for the months
of March and April of 2017 in violation of Condition No. 5 of his community supervision. On
October 26, 2017, the State supplemented its motion to revoke, adding allegations that on October
21, 2017, in violation of Condition No. 1 of his community supervision, Zulaica had committed
the offenses of criminal trespass of private property and resisting arrest-search-transport. At the
hearing on December 13, 2017, Zulaica pled true to having violated Condition No. 1 by committing
the offenses of criminal trespass of private property and resisting arrest-search-transport. That
same day, the trial court found that Zulaica twice violated Condition No. 1 of his community
supervision. The trial court then revoked Zulaica’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt,
and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. Zulaica timely filed a notice of appeal.
Zulaica’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal
authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes
that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional
evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45;
High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Counsel states that Zulaica was provided with a copy of the brief and
motion to withdraw, and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own
brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel
advised Zulaica that if he wished to review the record, he must file a motion in this court; counsel
enclosed a form motion for that purpose. See id. Zulaica did not file such a motion and did not file
a pro se brief.
-2-
04-18-00048-CR
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to
withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.);
Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Do not publish
1
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 later of (1)
the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
-3-