Brandon Guzman A/K/A Brandon Lucio Guzman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 18, 2024
• Docket: 13-23-00281-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00281-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

BRANDON GUZMAN A/K/A BRANDON LUCIO GUZMAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 187TH DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

Appellant Brandon Guzman a/k/a Brandon Lucio Guzman was convicted of murder

and sentenced to seventy years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02. 1

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling

authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also

informed this Court in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an

Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both

§ 73.001. 2 pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record

prior to filing those responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the

appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the

appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file

the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20;

see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

In this case, appellant filed a motion on October 23, 2023, seeking pro se access

to the appellate record, which this Court granted. This Court has granted multiple

extensions of time to file a pro se brief since then. On February 27, 2024, this Court

notified appellant his brief was due no later than March 28, 2024. Appellant has not filed

a pro se response or brief to date.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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 that it considered the issues raised in the briefs 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 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has

3 asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy

of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file

a petition for discretionary review. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 18th day of April, 2024.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration 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 should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4. 4