Court Opinion

ID: 9410014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 08:09:33.001377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.076880
License: Public Domain

In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                         Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
                                          No. 07-22-00197-CR

                              VIVIAN GLORIA PENA, APPELLANT

                                                     V.

                               THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                              On Appeal from the 207th District Court
                                      Comal County, Texas,
                  Trial Court No. CR2018-471, Honorable Dib Waldrip, Presiding

                                             July 18, 2023
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Appellant, Vivian Gloria Pena, was charged with assault against emergency

services personnel.1 By amended indictment, the State alleged Appellant “did then and

        1  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a) and (b)(5). The statute provides: “A person commits an
offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the
person’s spouse[.]” Id. at (a)(1). “An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except
that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against a person the actor knows
is emergency services personnel while the person is providing emergency services[.]” TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § (b)(5). “‘Emergency services personnel’ includes firefighters, emergency medical services personnel
as defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, emergency room personnel, and other individuals
who, in the course and scope of employment or as a volunteer, provide services for the benefit of the
general public during emergency situations.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(e)(1). “‘Emergency medical
services personnel’ means emergency care attendant; emergency medical technicians; advanced
there, intentionally [and] knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to [Complainant] by

biting the [Complainant] with the teeth of the [Appellant] and grabbing the [Complainant]

with the hand of the [Appellant], and the [Appellant] knew the [Complainant] was an

emergency services personnel providing emergency services.” (alteration added). A jury

convicted Appellant of the charged offense, and the court assessed punishment at five

years of confinement, probated for five years.2 This appeal followed.3

        Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, supported by an Anders4 brief.

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

        Appellant’s counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious

examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon

which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Via an explanatory letter to Appellant, counsel provided

Appellant with his motion to withdraw and a copy of his Anders brief. Counsel represented

in his letter to Appellant that he would transmit by email the appellate record in pdf format.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s

obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter,

this Court also advised Appellant of the right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

emergency medical technicians; emergency medical technicians—paramedic; or licensed paramedic.”
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 773.003 (10)(A)–(E).

        2 An offense under section 22.01(b)(5) is a felony of the third degree. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.01(b)(5).

       3 This appeal was originally filed in the Third Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court by

a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

        4   See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

                                                      2
brief. To date, Appellant has not filed a response or otherwise communicated with the

Court.

         We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent

review of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of

the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate

review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

                                               Conclusion

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.5

                                                                   Lawrence M. Doss
                                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

        5 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to
withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n. 33.

                                                      3