NUMBERS
13-11-00601-CR
13-11-00602-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
AMANDA GUERRERO A/K/A
AMANDA YNFANTE, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 117th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
In appellate cause number 13-11-601-CR, on March 11, 2011, appellant,
Amanda Guerrero a/k/a Amanda Ynfante, pleaded guilty to one count of theft, a state-
jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2011). Pursuant to a plea
bargain, the trial court adjudicated her guilty, sentenced her to two years in state jail,
imposed a fine of $1,000, suspended the sentence, and placed her on community
supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3 (West
Supp. 2011). In appellate cause number 13-11-602-CR, on May 23, 2011, appellant
pleaded guilty to two counts of state jail forgery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21
(West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court adjudicated her guilty,
sentenced her to two years in state jail, suspended the sentence, and placed her on
community supervision for three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 3.
In each case, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision on June 24, 2011 and an amended motion to revoke on August 11, 2011,
alleging various violations of appellant’s community supervision. On August 24, 2011,
the trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motions to revoke appellant’s
community supervision in both cases. In cause number 13-11-601-CR, appellant
pleaded “true” to several of the State’s allegations, and in cause number 13-11-602-CR,
she pleaded “true” to one of the State’s allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the trial court found that in cause number 13-11-601-CR, appellant violated four of the
conditions of her community supervision and in cause number 13-11-602-CR, that she
violated two of the conditions of her community supervision. In each case, the trial court
revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced her to two years’
confinement in state jail, with the sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 12.35 (West Supp. 2011).
I. ANDERS BRIEF
In each case, appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a
2
brief in support thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire
record in each case and has concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) examined the
record and has found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of
the brief and motion to withdraw in each case on appellant, and (3) informed appellant
of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response in each case.1 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). More than an adequate time has passed, and no pro se response has been filed
in either case. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record in each case and counsel’s
brief, and find that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders
briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and
reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at
509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
her appellate counsel in each case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he
must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant the motion to
withdraw in each case.
We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgments to appellant and advise her of her right to file a
petition for discretionary review in each case.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
________________________
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
24th day of May, 2012.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of these
cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing
that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
id. R. 68.4.
4
Amanda Guerrero v. State
Combined Opinion