In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00124-CR
FABIAN ARGUIJO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 222nd District Court
Deaf Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR-13K-126, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding
January 8, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Fabian Arguijo was convicted by jury of evading arrest with a motor
vehicle and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.1 His court-appointed appellate
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 39.04 (West 2013).
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief. We will grant counsel's
motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In November 2003, appellant was charged via indictment with the felony offense
of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. Prior to trial, appellant filed several motions
attempting to suppress his confession. The trial court denied the motions following a
hearing.
The State’s evidence at trial showed appellant came to the courthouse to discuss
his probation for another offense with his probation officer. He entered her office to do
so. By that time, a motion to revoke appellant’s probation had been filed and an arrest
warrant had been issued. When a deputy arrived and told appellant he was under
arrest, appellant pulled away and left the courthouse, ignoring warnings that he would
be committing an offense if he did so. He entered his car and sped away.
Appellant testified to a contrary version of the events. He told the jury he left the
probation office because he was “told that [he] wasn’t under arrest and [he] was to be
let go.” He testified he walked out of the office with deputies following him. He denied
being told he was under arrest or that he could not leave. He claimed parts of the
probation officer’s testimony and parts of the deputies’ testimony were false. He further
testified he turned himself in five days later.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); see In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2
The jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed
punishment as noted. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of
law.
Following his conviction, appellant filed notice of appeal. Thereafter, appellant's
appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant to
Anders in which he certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his
professional opinion, under the controlling authorities and facts of the case, there is no
reversible error or legitimate ground on which a non-frivolous appeal can arguably be
predicated. The brief discusses in detail the procedural history of the case and the
events at trial. Counsel discusses the applicable law and sets forth the reasons he
believes there are no arguably meritorious issues on which to appeal. Counsel has
certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been served on
appellant, and that counsel has provided appellant a copy of the appellate record and
informed him of his right to file a pro se response. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco
1994, pet. ref'd). By letter, this Court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit
a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant
filed a response, raising several issues.3
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we
will not rule on counsel’s motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the
record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If
3
After appellant filed his response, he submitted a letter requesting an extension of time.
Because his response had already been filed, his motion for extension of time is dismissed as moot.
3
this Court determines the appeal arguably has merit, we will remand it to the trial court
for appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App.1991).
By his Anders brief, counsel raises several grounds that could possibly support
an appeal, but explains why he concludes none show arguably reversible error. He
concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed each ground raised by counsel
and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are
any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). We have also considered appellant’s pro se response. We have
found no such arguable grounds supporting a claim of reversible error, and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw4 and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
4
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is issued, send appellant a copy of the opinion
and judgment, along with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. TEX. R.
APP. P. 48.4.
4