NO. 07-10-0019-CR 

NO. 07-10-0020-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL C 

MAY 11, 2011 

______________________________ 

SERENA ROJAS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

_________________________________ 

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT TWO OF TARRANT COUNTY; 

NOS. 1121706D & 1121491D; HONORABLE WAYNE SALVANT, JUDGE 

_______________________________ 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pursuant to open pleas of guilty, Appellant, Serena Rojas, was convicted of 

burglary of a habitation in cause number 1121706D1

 and aggravated assault with an 

affirmative finding on use of a firearm in cause number 1121491D.2

 Punishments were 

 

1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (West Supp. 2010). 

2 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2003). 
2 

imposed at twenty years and twenty-five years confinement, respectively.3 The 

sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. In presenting this appeal, counsel 

has filed an Anders4

 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel=s 

motion and affirm. 

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling 

authorities, the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the 

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to 

Appellant, (2) notifying her of the right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so, 

and (3) informing her of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.5

 By letter, this Court granted Appellant thirty days in 

which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should she be so 

 

3

Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 73.001 (West 

2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of 

this Court on any relevant issue. Tex. R. App. P. 41.3. 

4

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

5

Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with 

Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, at 408 n.22 & at 

411 n.35. 
3 

inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor 

us with a brief. 

The facts flowing from a guilty plea are minimal. According to evidence 

presented at the sentencing hearing, Appellant, a drug addict, had been in trouble since 

she was very young. While on trial for the underlying offenses, she was on probation 

for burglary.6 She and her younger brother, with whom she shared a very close 

relationship, committed offenses together to obtain money to support her drug habit. 

During closing argument, the State argued that rehabilitation was not possible 

and observed escalation in the seriousness of the offenses committed by Appellant. 

The State urged the trial court to impose a minimum sentence of forty years 

confinement. Defense counsel argued for another chance for Appellant and the benefit 

of SAFP to overcome her drug habit. The trial court noted that Appellant had proven 

she could not complete probation and imposed sentences of twenty and twenty-five 

years on the charged offenses. 

Appellate counsel raises two arguable issues, to-wit: the trial court erred by (1) 

imposing a sentence exceeding the plea bargain offer of twenty years and (2) imposing 

cruel and unusual punishment. Counsel then analyzes the issues and concedes no 

reversible error is presented. 

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

 

6

At the sentencing hearing, Appellant's probation was revoked and she was adjudicated guilty of the 

burglary offense in cause number 1058663D. That cause, however, is not on appeal before this Court. 
4 

U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such 

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing 

the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel that there are no plausible 

grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 

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

judgments are affirmed. 

 Patrick A. Pirtle 

 Justice 

Do not publish.