NO. 07-11-0174-CR
NO. 07-11-0175-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 10, 2011
ROSANNE BELEN CANTU,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
___________________________
FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY;
NOS. 2768 & 2777; HONORABLE STUART MESSER, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Rosanne Belen Cantu (appellant) appeals her convictions for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon and evading arrest. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant was
placed on deferred adjudication. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate
her guilt and appellant pled true to all allegations in the motion. At the close of the
hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced her to sixteen years
for aggravated assault and two years for evading arrest. Appellant’s appointed counsel
filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after
diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along
with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of
counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a
response pro se. By letter dated October 3, 2011, this court notified appellant of her
right to file her own brief or response by November 2, 2011, if she wished to do so. To
date, no response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed two potential areas for appeal. They included the 1) sufficiency of the
evidence and 2) effectiveness of trial counsel. However, counsel then proceeded to
explain why the issues were without merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with
counsel’s conclusions.2
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
We reviewed the record before us. Though the transcription of the original plea hearing is not
part of it, matters arising from that hearing and plea cannot be considered via an appeal from a judgment
revoking probation, adjudicating guilt and sentencing. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.
Crim. App.1999). Furthermore, the clerk’s record contains the written waivers, stipulations of evidence
and admonishments executed or received by the appellant prior to originally pleading guilty in both
prosecutions.
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.3
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3
Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
3
Rosanne Belan Cantu v. State
Combined Opinion