Court Opinion

ID: 2896985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 00:50:52.925208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:14.611675
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-07-0408-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JULY 22, 2008
______________________________

MAURICIA BELEN GARCIA AKA BELEN REYNA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________

FROM THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 90086; HONORABLE LAYNE WALKER, JUDGE
_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Appellant, Mauricia Belen Garcia, pleaded guilty to the offense of abandoning a
child with intent to return, a state jail felony.  As a result of a plea agreement, adjudication
was deferred and appellant was placed on probation for four years.  After the State had
filed its second motion to proceed with adjudication, appellant pleaded true to four
allegations of failure to comply with various aspects of her probation.  The trial court
received her pleas of true and adjudicated appellant guilty of the underlying offense.  After
a hearing on the issue of punishment, appellant was sentenced to confinement in a state
jail facility for a term of 13 months.  The trial court certified appellant’s right to appeal and
this appeal followed.  We affirm.
          Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion
to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion,
the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel
has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial
court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy
of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right
to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510
(Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response.  Appellant has not filed a response.
          By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,
but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an
independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable
grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346,
102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We
have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
 
          Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.

 
                                                                           Mackey K. Hancock
                                                                                     Justice

Do not publish.