Court Opinion

ID: 9555622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 16:16:14.767849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:11.177381
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 8, 2023

                                    In The

                             Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                        First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                            NO. 01-22-00758-CR
                          ———————————
                SAMUEL ALEJANDRO GARZA, Appellant
                                      V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the 344th Judicial District Court
                         Chambers County, Texas
                    Trial Court Case No. 21DCR0343

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Samuel Alejandro Garza appeals the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty

of the felony offense of robbery and sentencing him to 20 years’ confinement.1

Garza’s appointed counsel on appeal has moved to withdraw and submitted an

1
     See TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.02.
Anders brief,2 declaring there are no nonfrivolous bases for appeal. Garza did not

file a response, and the State waived its right to respond to the Anders brief. We

grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

                                     Background

      Garza pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery and true to an enhancement

paragraph. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt until a presentence investigation

report was completed. Later, at the presentence investigation hearing, the State

offered Garza’s plea paperwork and the presentence investigation report as an

exhibit. Defense counsel presented mitigating evidence through the testimony of six

witnesses. The trial court sentenced Garza to 20 years’ confinement.

      Garza filed a pro se notice of appeal, and the trial court appointed appellate

counsel. Appellate counsel has now moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief

stating that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

                                 Anders Procedures

      When appointed counsel believes an appeal by a criminal defendant is

frivolous, counsel may file both a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at

744). An Anders brief reflects the fact that counsel has adequately researched the

2
      See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
                                           2
case before deciding to withdraw. Id. at 407. It sets out counsel’s due diligence,

informs the client, and provides a roadmap for the appellate court’s review of the

record. Id. It also assists the client by providing citations to the record if he wishes

to exercise his right to file a pro se brief. Id. at 407–08. An Anders brief is appropriate

only when counsel has mastered the record and the evidence and determines that

there are no sustainable grounds for appeal. Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 430

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, order), disp. on merits, No. 01-08-00286-CR,

2010 WL 1053218 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem.

op., not designated for publication). If counsel finds that the appeal contains

potentially meritorious grounds, counsel must file a merits brief with the court. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406 n.9; Banks, 341 S.W.3d at 430; see Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      If counsel determines that potential grounds for appeal exist but that those

grounds would be frivolous, counsel must explain those grounds for appeal with

citations to applicable legal authority and pertinent evidence. In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d at 407; Banks, 341 S.W.3d at 431. Counsel should “point out where pertinent

testimony may be found in the record, refer to pages in the record where objections

were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court’s ruling, and discuss either

why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the

ruling of the court.” High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

                                            3
The purpose of this requirement is to convince the courts of appeals that counsel has

given due consideration to any potential ground for appeal before dismissing it as

frivolous. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407–09 (stating courts of appeals will

not grant motion to withdraw if Anders brief does not show that record was carefully

reviewed); High, 573 S.W.2d at 811 (describing importance of disclosing both legal

authority and potential grounds for appeal); Banks, 341 S.W.3d at 431 (same).

      Even when counsel believes that there are no grounds that might convince an

appellate court, counsel must still file an Anders brief, and the Anders brief must

direct the court of appeals to the portions of the record that could have created error

but did not. Banks, 314 S.W.3d at 431. Counsel may not provide a mere conclusory

statement that no grounds for appeal exist. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07;

see Anders, 386 U.S. at 742. While the courts of appeals have a supervisory role,

they should not have to pour over the record to determine that counsel has completed

a thorough review of the record. Banks, 341 S.W.3d at 431. If we conclude, after

conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised

professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree that the appeal is

frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d

684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re

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

                                          4
         In this Anders brief, counsel has discussed that this appeal is meritless and

frivolous because the record contains no reversible error. Counsel specifically

discussed and briefed: (1) Garza’s right to appeal; (2) the admonishments given to

Garza; (3) Garza’s trial objections; (4) Garza’s punishment; and (5) Garza’s guilty

plea. Garza did not file a response, and the State declined to respond to the Anders

brief.

         If appellant’s counsel moves to withdraw because an appeal is frivolous and

fulfills the Anders requirements, we must independently examine the record to see

if there is any arguable ground that might be raised on an appellant’s behalf. Stafford,

813 S.W.2d at 511. When performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the

arguments raised in the Anders brief, and any issues that an appellant might raise in

a pro se brief. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Only afterward may we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

         We have scrutinized counsel’s Anders brief, the State’s waiver of its right to

respond to the Anders brief, and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that

this appeal is meritless and frivolous. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                            5
                                    Conclusion

      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice

with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

                                               Sarah Beth Landau
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           6