Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00021-CR Robert Ray LACINA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-XX-XXXXXXX Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED In 2018, Appellant Robert Ray Lacina was indicted for robbery with prior conviction enhancement, and he pled guilty. The trial court deferred adjudication and sentenced him to ten years of community supervision.

Later, the State alleged that Lacina had violated multiple conditions of his community supervision, and it moved to adjudicate the robbery charge. In 2022, Lacina pled true to most of the State’s allegations. The trial court adjudicated Lacina’s guilt, and it assessed punishment at 04-22-00021-CR

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for a period of sixty years. Lacina appealed his conviction.

Having reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Lacina’s pro se brief, and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF Lacina’s court-appointed appellate counsel 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. The brief recited the relevant facts with citations to the record. It added that counsel reviewed the appellate record and concluded that “there are no issues warranting reversal of the trial court’s judgment.” See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

We conclude appellate counsel’s 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 Lacina with a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and informed Lacina 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.). Counsel also advised Lacina of his right to request a copy of the record and provided Lacina with a motion to request a copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

APPELLANT’S PRO SE BRIEF Lacina requested and received a copy of the appellate record. His pro se brief raises five issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) prosecutorial vindictiveness, (3) a Brady violation, (4) procedural due process violations, and (5) excessive or cruel and unusual punishment.

-2- 04-22-00021-CR

CONCLUSION Having reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and Lacina’s pro se brief, we conclude 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 we 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.

FURTHER REVIEW No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing himself, Lacina may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by filing a petition for discretionary review. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals 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, 68.3(a).

The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Do not publish

-3-