NUMBER 13-22-00032-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SHOZO TANAKA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 426th District Court of Bell County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa Appellant Shozo Tanaka appeals his conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(2)(B).

Tanaka pleaded guilty to both counts on September 21, 2021. On November 30, 2021, after considering a victim impact statement, a pre-sentence investigative report, and punishment evidence, the trial court sentenced Tanaka to life in prison in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division on each count.

Tanaka appealed. Tanaka’s court-appointed counsel, however, has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm. 1 I. ANDERS BRIEF In his brief, Tanaka’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“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.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Tanaka’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court in writing that he has: (1) notified Tanaka that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Tanaka with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Tanaka of his rights to file a pro se response, 2 review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Tanaka with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only Tanaka’s signature and the date and including the mailing address for the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and Tanaka has not filed 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 case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 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 that it considered the issues raised in the briefs 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, Tanaka’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (“[I]f 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.” (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779– (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (citations omitted))). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Tanaka and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006).

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

IV. CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the 9th day of June, 2022.