Court Opinion

ID: 3069111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:06:16.004079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:22.868876
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-14-00051-CR
                                     12-14-00052-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL ANGEL GARZA,                           §      APPEALS FROM THE
APPELLANT

V.                                             §      COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §      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.
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.

                                                          2
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)

                                                          3
                                   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.