From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Jun 27, 2024
No. 13-23-00261-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2024)

Opinion

13-23-00261-CR

06-27-2024

LUCIANO GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.


Do not publish.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

ON APPEAL FROM THE 117TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

Before Justices, Benavides, Longoria, and Silva

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CLARISSA SILVA, Justice

Appellant Luciano Garcia pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(d). The trial court placed appellant on five years' deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State later filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision. After conducting a hearing, where appellant pleaded true to several allegations, the trial court found that appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the offense, and sentenced appellant to eight years' confinement. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.108. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Anders Brief

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 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." (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Appellant's counsel also informed this Court in writing that she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses, 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; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09. In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se response

II. Independent Review

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs 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 511.

III. Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, appellant's counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days from the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration 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 should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Garcia v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Jun 27, 2024
No. 13-23-00261-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2024)
Case details for

Garcia v. State

Case Details

Full title:LUCIANO GARCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

Date published: Jun 27, 2024

Citations

No. 13-23-00261-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2024)