Javier Briones v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 07-11-0259-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 10, 2011
JAVIER BRIONES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
___________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;
NO. A4310-1003; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Javier Briones (appellant) appeals his conviction for assault causing bodily
injury/family violence. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant was placed on deferred
adjudication. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt. Appellant
pled true to one allegation1 and not true to the other six. At the close of the hearing, the
trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to six years in prison.
1
Appellant tested positive for marijuana in February of 2011 and admitted to using it to his
probation officer, which was the basis for this allegation in the State’s motion.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders2 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he
concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel
filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was
no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated
September 15, 2011, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or
response by October 17, 2011, if he wished to do so. Appellant filed a response.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed two potential areas for appeal. They included the 1) sufficiency of the
evidence and 2) punishment assessed. However, counsel then proceeded to explain
why the issues were without merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with
counsel’s conclusions.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
3
Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
2