Court Opinion

ID: 9958014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 06:14:48.489153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.445838
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 4, 2024

                                       In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    __________

       Nos. 11-22-00313-CR, 11-22-00314-CR, 11-22-00315-CR,
                         & 11-22-00316-CR
                                    __________

   MANUEL SANTIAGO-NEGRON A/K/A JUAN MANUEL
 SANTIAGO-NEGRON A/K/A JUAN NEGRON-SANTIAGO, JR.,
                    Appellant
                                          V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 35th District Court
                           Brown County, Texas
      Trial Court Cause Nos. CR27440, CR27441, CR27487, & CR27488

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Manuel Santiago-Negron, also known as Juan Manuel Santiago-
Negron and Juan Negron-Santiago, Jr., was charged by indictment with burglary of
a habitation (a first-degree felony), cruelty to a non-livestock animal (a third-degree
felony), aggravated robbery (a first-degree felony), and unauthorized use of a vehicle
(a state jail felony). See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03, 30.02 (West 2019),
§ 31.07 (West 2016), § 42.092 (West Supp. 2023). Appellant waived a jury trial,
and pleaded guilty to all four offenses as alleged. The trial court found Appellant
guilty, and assessed punishment at confinement for a term of forty years in the
Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for
the burglary offense, ten years for the animal-cruelty offense, forty years for the
aggravated-robbery offense, and confinement for two years for the offense of
unauthorized use of a vehicle in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a) (West Supp. 2023).
      At Appellant’s punishment hearing before the trial court, the State called six
witnesses. Appellant then testified on his own behalf, and called two additional
witnesses. The trial court heard that on January 30, 2020, Appellant and two other
men burglarized a seventy-three year old woman’s home, stabbed her dog multiple
times, and knocked her unconscious by hitting her on the head with a gun.
Appellant’s codefendant testified that it was Appellant’s idea to break into the
victim’s house. He also explained that Appellant hit the victim in the head with the
gun, and that Appellant stabbed the victim’s dog. The State likewise presented
testimony showing that Appellant was arrested for unauthorized use of a vehicle on
December 21, 2019.
      Appellant refuted his codefendant’s claim that the burglary was his idea, and
blamed his codefendant. He further testified that he only drove a stolen vehicle
because a friend told him to, and that he did not know that it was stolen. Appellant’s
sister and mother testified that Appellant was a good person, and showed remorse,
but the trial court found otherwise. Based on the evidence, the trial court denied
Appellant’s request for community supervision, and sentenced him to terms of
imprisonment within the respective statutory ranges. See PENAL §§ 12.32–.35,
29.03, 30.02, 31.07, 42.092.
                                          2
           Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this
Court. The motions are supported by briefs for each cause in which counsel
professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and
concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided
Appellant with copies of the briefs, copies of the motions to withdraw, an
explanatory letter, copies of the clerk’s records, and a copy of the reporter’s record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s briefs, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
           Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders briefs.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist. 1
           Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

                                                          JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE
April 4, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

         We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
           1

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                                                      3