NOS. 12-14-00051-CR

 12-14-00052-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Michael Garza appeals two convictions of misdemeanor theft following the revocation of 

his deferred adjudication community supervision, for which he was sentenced to confinement for 

one hundred eighty days in each cause. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. 

State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by information in two separate causes with theft of property 

valued between fifty and five hundred dollars. Appellant pleaded “guilty” in each instance. The 

trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for two 

years in each cause. 

Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in 

each cause alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing 

was conducted on the State’s motions, and Appellant pleaded “true” to the violations alleged 

therein. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the 

terms and conditions of his community supervisions as alleged in the State’s motions. 
2

Thereafter, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervisions, adjudicated him “guilty” 

of theft as charged in each information, and sentenced him to confinement for one hundred 

eighty days in each cause. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of 

the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for 

appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. 

Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.

 

1 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this 

brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and 

no pro se brief has been filed.
3

P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with 

the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered April 15, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 15, 2015

NO. 12-14-00051-CR

 

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-81506-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 15, 2015

NO. 12-14-00052-CR

 

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-83977-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.