NUMBERS 13-25-00641-CR, 13-25-00642-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
BETH RENE REGALADO, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT
OF ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca
Appellant Beth Rene Regalado pleaded guilty to the offenses of theft of property
valued greater than $2,500 but less than $30,000,1 a state jail felony, and burglary of
habitation, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 31.03(e)(4)(A),
1 Though charged as the enhanced offense for theft of an elderly person, appellant ultimately
pleaded to the offense as described above.
31.03(f)(3)(A), 30.02(c)(2). The trial court sentenced Regalado to two years’
imprisonment in state jail for the theft offense to run concurrently with ten years’
imprisonment for the burglary offense, suspended the sentences, and placed her on
community supervision for five years for both offenses. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
42A.053(a). The State filed a motion to revoke, and on October 24, 2025, the trial court
held a hearing on the motion. Following testimony, the trial court revoked appellant’s
community supervision for both offenses and sentenced her to fifteen months in the state
jail division for the theft offense to run concurrently with a sentence of two years for the
burglary of habitation offense with credit for time served.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that there
are no arguable grounds for appeal in either case. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Counsel states in his briefs that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and
that “there are no non-frivolous issues to be raised” on appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s briefs meet the
requirements of Anders as they present a thorough, professional evaluation showing why
there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“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.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
2
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has in both
causes: (1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw;
(2) provided appellant with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her rights
to file a pro se response,2 to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek
discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant
with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s
signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Appellant did not file a motion seeking pro se
access to the appellate record and did not file a pro se response in either cause.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record in both cases and counsel’s briefs, and
we have found no arguable reversible error. 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 it
considered the issues raised in the brief 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, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed
2 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the
rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
3
motions to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no
pet.) (“If 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.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw in both cases.
Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its
accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise her of her right to file a petition for
discretionary review in both cases, within five days of the date of this memorandum
opinion.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex
parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
6th day of August, 2026.
3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, she 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 date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4