In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00436-CR
TOMAS BADILLO III, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 364th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-431,656; Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Presiding
July 17, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Tomas Badillo III, was convicted by a
jury of burglary of a habitation, 1 enhanced, and sentenced to forty years confinement.
In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 2 brief in support of a motion to
withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion and affirm.
1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(d) (W EST 2011).
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the
controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has
complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of
the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired
to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. 3 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an
opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should he be so
inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response. Neither did the State favor
us with a brief.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Appellant and the victim had been involved in a romantic relationship in the early
months of 2011, and when she ended the relationship, she was pregnant with his child.
In the summer of 2011, the victim and her children were temporarily living with her
sister. Not long after the relationship ended, Appellant showed up at the victim’s sister’s
3
Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & at 411 n.35.
2
home one morning knocking on the door. When the victim refused entry, he forcibly
entered the home and, with knowledge of her pregnancy, assaulted her. According to
the victim, Appellant punched her, pulled her hair and dragged her, choked her and
attempted to drown her in a child’s pool. The victim’s niece and nephew testified they
witnessed Appellant assaulting their aunt and tried to help her.
Appellant was indicted for intentionally or knowingly entering a habitation without
consent and attempting to commit or committing a felony other than felony theft. The
officer who responded to the domestic disturbance call testified he observed evidence
of forced entry at the home and an injury to one of the victim’s eyes. A detective
assigned to the case a few days later interviewed the victim and photographed her
injuries.
ANALYSIS
By the Anders brief, counsel diligently evaluates the stages of Appellant’s trial
during guilt and punishment and concludes the evidence is sufficient to support his
conviction and the punishment assessed. He also concludes that no reversible error is
presented.
We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there
are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such
issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing
3
the record and counsel=s brief, we agree with counsel that there is no plausible basis for
reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4