MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00858-CR
Martha BARRERA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2007CR1188
Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 14, 2011
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Appellant Martha Barrera pleaded guilty to the offense of welfare fraud. The trial court
placed her on community supervision for a period of four years. The State subsequently filed a
motion to revoke Barrera’s community supervision, alleging she had violated several terms of
her probation. Barrera pleaded true to one of the alleged violations. The trial court continued
Barrera’s probation, but extended it for two additional years and assessed a 30-day jail sentence.
Subsequently, the State filed a second motion to revoke, alleging Barrera had again violated a
04-10-00858-CR
condition of her probation. Barrera pleaded true to the alleged violation, and the trial court found
it to be true, revoked Barrera’s probation, and sentenced her to eight months confinement.
Barrera filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s revocation.
Barrera’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided proof Barrera was given a copy of the brief and motion to
withdraw and was informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. Barrera has
not filed a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Barrera’s counsel and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996,
no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Barrera wish to seek further review of
this case 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 after either the day our judgment is
rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc
reconsideration is 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.
-2-
04-10-00858-CR
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.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Do Not Publish
-3-