Daniel Florez v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00433-CR
DANIEL FLOREZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 46th District Court
Wilbarger County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12,898, Honorable Cornell Curtis, Presiding
July 12, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
In January 2023, Appellant, Daniel Florez, pleaded guilty to the offense of arson,
a second-degree felony,1 pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court sentenced him to
eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision with conditions and assessed
a fine of $4,000. On March 8, 2023, the State filed its First Amended Motion to Proceed
With an Adjudication of Guilt, alleging that Appellant had violated four conditions of his
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 28.02(a), (d).
community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s Motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to
violating conditions three and twenty-nine2 of his community supervision by assaulting his
spouse and having contact with his spouse. He pleaded “not true” to the State’s
remaining allegations. After hearing testimony, the trial court found that Appellant had
violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of arson.
Appellant was sentenced to sixteen years of confinement and a $5,000 fine. In this
appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We affirm the judgment
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
In support of her motion, counsel has certified that she has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record, and, in her opinion, the record reflects no
reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under
controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,
counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw, provided him with a copy of counsel’s
Anders brief and 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
appointed 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
2 Condition three required that Appellant “[c]ommit no offense against the laws of this State or any
other state or the United States.” Condition twenty-nine required that Appellant “have no contact” with his
spouse.
2
response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response. The State has not
filed a brief.
In her Anders brief, counsel discusses possible areas in the record where error
may have occurred, but concludes that any appeal is frivolous. We have independently
examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of
the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate
review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted3 and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Counsel, shall, within five days after the 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, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n. 33.
3