COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARISA JUAREZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 000 24

- C R

Appeal from the

399th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2018CR13513B)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marisa Juarez challenges the revocation of her community supervision for aggravated

robbery. T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.03. Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief in support of

a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.



### F ACTUAL AND 

### P ROCEDURAL 

### B ACKGROUND

The State charged Appellant by indictment with one count of aggravated robbery in

December 2018. 1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.03. Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the

Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of

Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.2 bargain, and the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a

period of eight years beginning July 15, 2019

.

In J anuary 2020, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant ’ s

community supervision. Rather than adjudicate

, the trial court amended the conditions of

Appellant ’ s community supervision in an order dated February 7, 2020. The State subsequently

filed two more motions to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant ’ s community supervision in April

2020 and June 2021

, respectively

. Each time, rather than adjudicate, the trial court again amended

the conditions of Appellant ’ s community supervision

.

In October 2022, the State filed another motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant ’ s

community supervision , alleging seven violations. Then later tha t month, the State amended the

motion, adding two more violations

. At the h earing on the motion, Appellant pleaded “ t rue ” to the

State ’ s first allegation. 2 The trial court accepted Appellant ’ s plea and entered a judgment of

conviction for one count of aggravated robbery. Th e trial court assessed punishment at eight years ’

confinement and sentenced Appellant accordingly.



### F RIVOLOUS 

### A PPEAL

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief satisfies the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Id. at 7 4 4. As required by the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals, Appellant ’ s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided copies of the motion

and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a

2 The State waived and abandoned the remaining allegations after Appellant entered a plea of “ true ” to the first

allegation.3 pro se response, notified Appellant of her right to seek discretionary review should we find this

appeal frivolous

, provided a motion to assist Appellant in obtaining the record, and supplied

Appellant with this Court ’ s mailing address. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 319

– 20

( Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders

, 386 U.S. at 744.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, along with the Anders brief, and we agree with

counsel ’ s professional assessment that the record does not present any meritorious grounds for

review. Accordingly, we find the appeal frivolous.



### C ONCLUSION

We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

September 15, 2023

Before Rodriguez

, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.

(Do Not Publish)