Adrian Nicholas Paz v. State ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00365-CR
Adrian Nicholas PAZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CR8126
Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
AFFIRMED
On December 6, 2015, Appellant Adrian Nicolas Paz entered a plea of nolo contendere to
the offense of assault on a public servant; the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Paz
on deferred adjudication probation for a period of five years.
On April 12, 2018, Paz entered a plea of true to the State’s only alleged violation, an
allegation of assault on a public servant allegedly occurring on February 27, 2018. The trial court
found the State’s sole allegation true, entered an adjudication of guilt on the underlying aggravated
04-18-00365-CR
robbery, and assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $2,000.00. This appeal ensued.
COURT-APPOINTED APPELLATE COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF
Paz’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation
of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel also filed a
motion to withdraw. In appellate counsel’s brief, he recites the relevant facts with citations to the
record, analyzes the record with respect to allegations and the evidence presented at trial, and
accompanies the analysis with relevant legal authorities. Counsel concludes the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no
pet.).
We conclude the brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see
also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Paz with copies of the briefs and
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Paz of his right to review the record and file a pro se
brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court also advised Paz of his right to request a copy of
the record and file a brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
No additional briefing was filed in this court.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the entire record and court-appointed counsel’s Anders brief, we agree
with Paz’s court-appointed appellate counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal and the
appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to
withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
-2-
04-18-00365-CR
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Paz 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 he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2)
the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is 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. Id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id.
R. 68.4.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-