The underlying offenses in both cause numbers pertain to robberies at two different convenience 1

stores on or about the night of January 11, 2004. However, because appellant’s counsel has filed Anders

briefs in both appellate cause numbers 13-09-417-CR and 13-09-418-CR, and because the analysis is the

NUMBERS 13-09-00417-CR

 13-09-00418-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

RANDY GUERRA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Vela

 Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Randy Guerra, was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated

robbery, a first-degree felony, in both appellate cause numbers 13-09-417-CR and 13-09-

418-CR. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea 1
same, we issue one opinion addressing both appellate cause numbers.

 The punishments imposed in both appellate cause numbers were ordered to run concurrently. 2

 “TAIP” is identified on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website as the “Treatment 3

Alternative to Incarceration Program (CJAD).” See Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice: Definitions & Acronyms,

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/definitions/definitions-acronyms.htm (last visited Feb. 2, 2010). 

 In its fourth motion to revoke, the State alleged, among other things, that Guerra violated the terms

4

and conditions of his community supervision by engaging in family violence assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 22.01(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2009); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.003 (Vernon 2008). 

2

agreement with the State, Guerra pleaded guilty to the underlying charge. The trial court

found Guerra guilty of the underlying offenses in both appellate cause numbers, assessed

a sentence of ten years’ confinement, suspended the sentence, placed Guerra on

community supervision for ten years, and imposed a fine of $500 and court costs. 

2

On May 3, 2005, the State filed its first motion to revoke Guerra’s community

supervision, alleging that Guerra had violated several conditions of his community

supervision by unlawfully carrying a weapon, possessing marihuana, and failing to pay

court-ordered fines and fees. At a hearing on the State’s first motion to revoke, Guerra

pleaded “true” to the allegations contained in the State’s motion to revoke; the trial court

subsequently sanctioned Guerra, placed him on the “special caseload for substance abuse

probation program,” and ordered him to participate in TAIP evaluations and attend 3

substance abuse classes. Thereafter, the State filed three more motions to revoke,

asserting that Guerra had violated several other conditions of his community supervision,

including several instances of improper consumption of alcohol. With respect to the

second and third motions to revoke, the trial court further sanctioned Guerra; however, the

trial court revoked Guerra’s community supervision after Guerra pleaded “true” to the

allegations contained in the State’s fourth motion to revoke that was filed on May 15,

2009. After revoking Guerra’s community supervision, the trial court reduced the 4
3

suspended ten-year sentences to eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with no fine and, once again, ordered the

sentences imposed in both appellate cause numbers to run concurrently. 

Guerra’s appellate counsel, concluding that there are “no meritorious issues to bring

forward for review,” filed Anders briefs in both appellate cause numbers, in which he

reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeals. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Guerra’s

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed briefs with this Court, stating that his review of

the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated in either

appellate cause number. Although counsel’s briefs do not advance any arguable grounds

of error, they do present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced in either appeal. See In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“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

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), Guerra's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are

no errors in the trial court's judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1)

examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance in either appeal, (2)

served copies of the briefs and counsel’s motions to withdraw on Guerra, and (3) informed
 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the 5

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court

those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case

presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting

Wilson v. State, 955 S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–W aco 1997, no pet.)).

4

Guerra of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response in both appellate

cause numbers. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also 5

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has

passed, and Guerra has not filed a pro se response in either appellate cause number. See

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

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 entire record and counsel's briefs and have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal in either appellate cause number. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Guerra’s attorney has asked this Court for permission

to withdraw as counsel in both appellate cause numbers. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776,

779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous,
 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Guerra wish to seek further review of these cases 6

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 that was overruled by this

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which

it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

5

he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s

motions to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered

to send a copy of the opinion and judgment in each appellate cause number to Guerra and

advise him of his right to file petitions for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; 6

see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

_______________________ 

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered and filed the

25th day of February, 2010.