Saul Marquez Garza v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

NUMBER 13-20-00321-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
SAUL MARQUEZ GARZA, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
Appellant Saul Marquez Garza appeals a judgment revoking his probation for
assault on a public servant, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.01(b)(1). The trial court sentenced Garza to ten years’ imprisonment. See id.
§ 12.34. Garza’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there
are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Garza’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed
a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record
yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,
an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds
none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set
out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510
n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Garza’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Garza’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that he
(1) notified Garza that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided
Garza with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Garza of his rights to file a pro se
response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek discretionary review
in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and
(4) provided Garza with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with
2
instructions to sign and file the motion with the court of appeals within ten days by mailing
it to the address provided. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20;
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Garza
has been provided access to the appellate record. However, an adequate time has
passed, and Garza has not filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire record, and we have found
nothing that would support a finding of reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Garza’s counsel asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no
pet.)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s
opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to
3
Garza and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX.
R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
GINA M. BENAVIDES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
24th day of June, 2021.
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Garza seeks 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 must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc
reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4