In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-20-00352-CR
LIONSO CISNEROS, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B20248-1606, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding
December 15, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant, Lionso Cisneros, Jr., was charged with the state jail felony offense of
forgery of a financial instrument.1 He pleaded guilty in September of 2016 and was
sentenced to twelve months’ incarceration in the State Jail Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $1,000 fine, court costs, attorney’s fees,
and restitution. The trial court suspended appellant’s sentence and placed him on
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.21(d).
community supervision for four years. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke
appellant’s supervision. At a hearing on the motion, appellant entered a plea of “true” to
all the State’s allegations except an allegation concerning community service hours. The
trial court found appellant had violated several conditions of community supervision and
sentenced him in accordance with the suspended sentence.
Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record
and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the
record presents no reversible error. In a letter to appellant, counsel notified him of his
motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and the
appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s
obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter,
this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders
brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error
may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently
2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found
no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300
(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we
conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review.
Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 The judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant 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. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
3