Court Opinion

ID: 9840785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 08:07:41.56629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:50.574203
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00055-CR

          JANET LEE GUAJARDO, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 114th District Court
                 Smith County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 114-0889-20

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

            On December 10, 2020, Janet Lee Guajardo, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to

abandoning or endangering a child1 and was placed on community supervision for a period of

five years.2 In January 2023, the State moved to revoke Guajardo’s community supervision and

to sentence her to two years’ incarceration in state jail. The State’s motion alleged, among other

things, that Guajardo failed to complete community service hours and obtain her GED as

required by the court’s community supervision terms and conditions. Guajardo pled true to four

of the allegations and, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion.

Guajardo was sentenced to fifteen months’ incarceration.

            Guajardo’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found

no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.

Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.041(c) (Supp.).
2
    Guajardo was sentenced to two years in a state jail facility, with the sentence suspended.
                                                             2
         By letter of June 8, 2023, counsel sent Guajardo copies of the Anders brief and a motion

to withdraw and informed Guajardo of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response.

Guajardo did not request a copy of the appellate record. On July 11, 2023, this Court notified

Guajardo that her pro se response was due on August 10, 2023. Guajardo did not file a

responsive brief, and on August 24, 2023, this Court notified her that her case would be

submitted to the Court on September 14, 2023.

         We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.                        We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

         We affirm the trial court’s judgment.3

                                                            Charles van Cleef
                                                            Justice

Date Submitted:            September 14, 2023
Date Decided:              September 15, 2023

Do Not Publish

3
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3