NO. 07-11-00504-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

JUNE 8, 2012 

ALFREDO PECINA, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; 

NO. B17667-0806; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Appellant, Alfredo Pecina, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon.1

 Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on 

deferred adjudication for a period of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to 

adjudicate appellant. The first motion to adjudicate was dismissed. Later, the State 

filed another motion to adjudicate appellant guilty and, subsequently, amended the 

second motion to adjudicate. Appellant pleaded “True,” without benefit of any plea 

 1

 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). 
2 

bargain, to nearly all of the allegations presented against him. After finding appellant 

guilty of aggravated assault, the trial court conducted a hearing on punishment. The 

trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for eleven years. This appeal followed 

appellant’s conviction. We affirm. 

Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his 

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling 

authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has 

certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to 

withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this 

matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has 

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a 

response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support 

an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with 

counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 
3 

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s 

judgment is affirmed.2

 Mackey K. Hancock 

 Justice 

Do not publish. 

 2

 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.