In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00249-CR
LUIS MIGUEL GUIDO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Swisher County, Texas
Trial Court No. B4295-09-11, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
May 29, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant Luis Miguel Guido appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him
guilty of the felony offense of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, 1 and the
resulting sentence of ten years’ confinement in prison and fine of $3,000. Appellant’s
court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw from the
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09 (West Supp. 2013).
representation supported by an Anders2 brief. Agreeing with counsel that the record
does not support an arguable ground for appeal, we grant the motion to withdraw and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Pursuant to a 2010 plea bargain agreement appellant plead guilty to tampering
with physical evidence. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed
appellant under an order of community supervision. Among other things, the order
required appellant report to the community supervision officer, pay specified fees, and
complete community service hours.
During 2011, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt and revoke his
community supervision. At the hearing the trial court found appellant violated the terms
of his community supervision by failing to report, failing to pay the community
supervision fee, and failing to perform community service. It modified the terms of
appellant’s community supervision order by extending the term or community
supervision, assessing a fine, adding hours of community service, and adding attorney’s
fees.
In 2013, the State sought adjudication of guilt and revocation of community
supervision. The violations alleged by the State were again failure to report, failure to
pay fees, and failure to perform the requisite amount of community service. Appellant
plead true to the State’s allegations. The only witness at the hearing was appellant’s
community supervision officer. She gave testimony supporting each of the violations
alleged. Following presentation of the evidence, the trial court adjudicated appellant
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2
guilty of the charged offense, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him
as noted.
In the Anders brief, appellant’s counsel states “there are no arguable grounds for
appeal remaining from the Appellant’s plea of guilty followed by the Motion to Revoke.”
The brief discusses the procedural history of the case and the proceedings in
connection with the motion to adjudicate guilt. Counsel discusses the applicable law
and sets forth the reasons he concludes there is no ground on which to base an appeal.
Counsel has certified that a copy of his motion to withdraw and Anders brief were
served on appellant. Counsel further indicates he provided appellant a copy of the
record and notified him of the right to file a pro se response. Johnson v. State, 885
S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. refused). By letter, this Court also
notified appellant of the opportunity to file a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw
and Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we
will not rule on the 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 this
Court determines the appeal 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).
In his brief, counsel discusses several potential issues but concludes none will
support an appeal. We have independently reviewed the record to determine whether
any arguable grounds support an appeal from the adjudication, revocation, and
3
sentence. We find no arguably meritorious ground for appellate review. We therefore
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw3 and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file
a pro se petition for discretionary review. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
4
Luis Miguel Guido v. State
Combined Opinion