Jose Valentine Facio v. State ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00009-CR
Jose Valentine FACIO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR1159
Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
A jury found appellant Jose Valentine Facio guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly
weapon. Facio elected to have the trial court assess punishment in the event the jury found him
guilty. The trial court sentenced Facio to twenty-five years’ confinement.
Facio’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978),
and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Facio was provided with a copy
04-18-00009-CR
of the brief and informed of his right to obtain a copy of the appellate record and file his own brief.
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also 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.). Appointed counsel also provided Facio with a form
which he could sign, date, and file with this court in order to obtain a copy of the record. See
Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20. Facio filed neither a request for the record nor a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and
agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Facio’s counsel and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Facio wish to seek further review of this
case in 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 after either the day our judgment is rendered
or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely 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. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-2-