In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00305-CR
RODOLFO LUNA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Swisher County, Texas
Trial Court No. B-4409-11-10, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
January 12, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Rodolfo Luna pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building (a state jail
felony) and was placed on deferred adjudication for four years. His community
supervision was modified twice, but the State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate
his guilt. Appellant pled true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions
of his community supervision, and the court revoked his probation. He was then
adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two years confinement in a state jail facility and
assessed a $3,000 fine.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief in which he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has
concluded that the appeal is without merit. Attached to his brief is a copy of a letter
sent to appellant informing appellant of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible
error and of his right to file a brief or response pro se. Counsel has further represented
that he provided a copy of the appellate record to appellant. By letter, this court also
notified appellant of his right to file a brief or response and set December 31, 2014, as
the date to do so. No brief or response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential issues for appeal including 1) appellant’s waiver of his rights at the
original plea hearing, 2) the sufficiency of the indictment and its invocation of the trial
court’s jurisdiction, 3) the modifications of appellant’s probation, 4) the legality of the
sentence, and 5) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the initial plea and the
subsequent adjudication of guilt. After doing so, he explained why there was no
reversible error.
We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to 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). Our own review failed to reveal arguable error.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
Rodolfo Luna v. State
Combined Opinion