Amanda Guerrero v. State ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                   NUMBERS
    13-11-00601-CR
    13-11-00602-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    AMANDA GUERRERO A/K/A
    AMANDA YNFANTE,                                                        Appellant,
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.
    On appeal from the 117th District Court
    of Nueces County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
    In appellate cause number 13-11-601-CR, on March 11, 2011, appellant,
    Amanda Guerrero a/k/a Amanda Ynfante, pleaded guilty to one count of theft, a state-
    jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2011). Pursuant to a plea
    bargain, the trial court adjudicated her guilty, sentenced her to two years in state jail,
    imposed a fine of $1,000, suspended the sentence, and placed her on community
    supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3 (West
    Supp. 2011). In appellate cause number 13-11-602-CR, on May 23, 2011, appellant
    pleaded guilty to two counts of state jail forgery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21
    (West 2011).    Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court adjudicated her guilty,
    sentenced her to two years in state jail, suspended the sentence, and placed her on
    community supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3.
    In each case, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
    supervision on June 24, 2011 and an amended motion to revoke on August 11, 2011,
    alleging various violations of appellant’s community supervision. On August 24, 2011,
    the trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motions to revoke appellant’s
    community supervision in both cases.        In cause number 13-11-601-CR, appellant
    pleaded “true” to several of the State’s allegations, and in cause number 13-11-602-CR,
    she pleaded “true” to one of the State’s allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing,
    the trial court found that in cause number 13-11-601-CR, appellant violated four of the
    conditions of her community supervision and in cause number 13-11-602-CR, that she
    violated two of the conditions of her community supervision. In each case, the trial court
    revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced her to two years’
    confinement in state jail, with the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE
    ANN. § 12.35 (West Supp. 2011).
    I. ANDERS BRIEF
    In each case, appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
    2
    brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire
    record in each case and has concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967); High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
    [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the
    record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of
    the brief and motion to withdraw in each case on appellant, and (3) informed appellant
    of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response in each case.1 See
    
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1991). More than an adequate time has passed, and no pro se response has been filed
    in either case. See In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
    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 entire record in each case and counsel’s
    brief, and find that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. 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 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
    . Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    1
    The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
    the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, 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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 
    955 S.W.2d 693
    , 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
    3
    III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
    In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
    her appellate counsel in each case. 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 each case.
    We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
    copy of the opinion and judgments to appellant and advise her of her right to file a
    petition for discretionary review in each case.2 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).
    ________________________
    DORI CONTRERAS GARZA
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
    Delivered and filed the
    24th day of May, 2012.
    2
    No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these
    cases 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 
    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.
    4