Joshua Pena v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00188-CR
JOSHUA PENA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A18928-1109, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding
November 16, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Joshua Pena, appellant, was charged with debit card abuse, a state jail felony.
After pleading guilty to that offense, he was sentenced to 15 months in a state jail facility
and fined $2000. The sentence, however, was suspended, and appellant was placed
on community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State initiated its first
attempt to revoke appellant’s community supervision; it resulted in the trial court
extending the term of appellant’s time on community supervision. A second motion to
revoke was later filed by the State and served on appellant. In response, appellant pled
true to the allegations therein. Ultimately, the trial court granted this motion, revoked
appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to 15 months in a state jail
facility and assessed a $2000 fine. Appellant appealed.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1
brief. Through those documents, he certifies to the court that, after diligently searching
the record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of
a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there is
no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se, to counsel’s
Ander’s brief. By letter dated October 5, 2015, this court also notified appellant of his
right to file his own brief or response by November 4, 2015, if he wished to do so. To
date, no response has been received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to
revoke probation, sufficiency of the court’s admonishments prior to accepting
appellant’s guilty plea, procedural issues with the revocation process, and range of
punishment issues. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
3