Court Opinion

ID: 3078759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:39:15.258166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:32.779553
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               _________________
                                 NO. 09-12-00228-CR
                               _________________

                            MARIO GARCIA, Appellant

                                           V.

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                          Liberty County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. CR29258
________________________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Following a jury trial, appellant, Mario Garcia was convicted of burglary of a

habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011). After pleading true to

four enhancement paragraphs, Garcia was sentenced by the jury to confinement in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of eighty years. This appeal followed.

      Garcia’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

                                           1
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 16, 2012, we granted an extension of time for

appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Garcia.

      We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                       ___________________________
                                                              CHARLES KREGER
                                                                   Justice

Submitted on November 19, 2012
Opinion Delivered January 16, 2013
Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

      1
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

                                            2