NO. 07-10-00459-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011
ERNESTO GARZA, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. A18533-1008; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ernesto Garza, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of evading arrest
or detention.1 After hearing the punishment evidence, a jury assessed appellant’s
punishment at confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for a period of two years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(A) (West 2011).
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 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).
Additionally, we have reviewed the grounds set forth in appellant’s response. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. 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Do not publish.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