In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00302-CR
KRISTOPHER TONY GARCIA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B19066-1202, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
March 25, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Kristopher Tony Garcia, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle,1 a state jail felony, and was placed on deferred
adjudication for a period of three years, pursuant to a plea bargain. Subsequently, the
State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate,
appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations made by the State. Thereafter, the
trial court found the allegations to be true and after hearing the evidence on
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.07 (West 2011).
punishment, sentenced appellant to two years in a State Jail Facility. Appellant gave
notice of appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and
appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support
an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds 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 found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
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.
3