From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cervantes v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 18, 2024
No. 11-23-00288-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)

Opinion

11-23-00288-CR

07-18-2024

MIGUEL CERVANTES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22CRCC-00158

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

W. STACY TROTTER, JUSTICE

Appellant, Miguel Cervantes, entered an open plea of nolo contendere to the offense of deadly conduct by recklessly engaging in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.05(a), (e) (West 2019). The trial court accepted Appellant's plea and the parties presented punishment evidence. The trial court heard testimony from six witnesses, including the victim of the offense, Appellant, and Appellant's family members. The State also introduced judgments of Appellant's prior convictions- two felonies and four misdemeanors. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at confinement for one year in the Erath County Jail.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. As such, 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 has not filed a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.

Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.


Summaries of

Cervantes v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District
Jul 18, 2024
No. 11-23-00288-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)
Case details for

Cervantes v. State

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL CERVANTES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

Date published: Jul 18, 2024

Citations

No. 11-23-00288-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)