Augustin Pineda v. State ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00245-CR
AUGUSTIN PINEDA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Hall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3696, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
February 24, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Augustin Pineda, appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After accepting a guilty plea and following the
plea agreement, the trial court placed appellant on six years’ deferred adjudication
probation. Subsequently, the State moved the trial court to adjudicate appellant’s guilt in
the cause. After a hearing on the motion and accepting appellant’s plea of true to all
allegations found in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt, the trial court found that
appellant violated conditions of his probation and adjudicated him guilty. Then, it
sentenced him to eighteen years in prison. Appellant now appeals.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders1 brief.
Through those documents, she 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 pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.
So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records,
according to the letter. By letter dated November 21, 2019, this Court notified appellant
of his right to file his own brief or response by December 23, 2019, if he wished to do so.
On December 30, 2019, after receiving an opportunity to respond to counsel’s Anders
brief, appellant filed with this Court a letter wherein he requested “an extension of time to
file [a] Petition for Discretionary Review.”
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal. They concerned 1) sufficiency of the evidence to
support revocation and 2) disproportionate sentencing. However, she then explained why
the issues lacked merit. We conducted our own review of the record to uncover arguable
error. This was done per In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No arguable issues
were discovered.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.