Juan Garcia v. State ( 2014 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00510-CR
Juan GARCIA,
Appellant
v.
The State of /s
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR1531
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2014
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, appellant pled no contest, pursuant to a plea
bargain, to possession of a firearm (habitual). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five
years’ confinement. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a
professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the
record and of his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief.
04-13-00510-CR
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we may either (1) determine
that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error, or (2) determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and
remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Garner
v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, we have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se
brief, and the case law on which appellant relies for his arguments. We conclude there is no
reversible error and this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Therefore, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Do not publish
1
No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary
review must comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
-2-