Juan Arturo Martinez v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-20-00062-CR
JUAN ARTURO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Castro County, Texas
Trial Court No. A3522-1401, Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli, Presiding
December 15, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J. and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Juan Arturo Martinez, appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision and sentencing him to a state jail facility for two years and assessing a $2,000
fine. Before having been placed on five years’ community supervision, the trial court
convicted him of possessing a controlled substance, sentenced him to two years in a state
jail facility, and suspended that sentence. In July of 2019, the State moved to revoke
appellant’s community supervision. The motion was granted by the trial court after
hearing and accepting appellant’s plea of true to four alleged instances of him violating
terms of his probation. On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and a
motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel certified that he conducted a conscientious examination of the record,
and, in his opinion, the record reflected no reversible error upon which an appeal could
be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). In a letter to appellant, his counsel notified him of his motion to
withdraw and provided him with a copy of the motion and his Anders brief. He also
provided Appellant with a copy of the appellate record and informed him of his right to file
a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
(specifying counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response. Appellant did not file a response. Nor has the State has filed a response brief.
We reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent search of the
record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were preserved in the
trial court which might support an appeal. Like appellant’s counsel, we too found none.
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
Thus, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review, grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
1 See Anders v. California, 386 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 Counsel, shall, within five days after this memorandum opinion is handed down, send Appellant
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one only. Counsel has no
duty to provide further representation to appellant.
2