Higinio Lombrano Garcia v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Opinion filed May 12, 2022 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ Nos. 11-21-00138-CR & 11-21-00143-CR __________ HIGINIO LOMBRANO GARCIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. A-18-1699-CR & A-18-1700-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Higinio Lombrano Garcia of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found the enhancement allegations to be true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for sixty years in each count. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is without merit and frivolous. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief, and this court has considered Appellant’s contentions. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and have found no reversible error; therefore, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. PER CURIAM May 12, 2022 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3