Cherry Dawn Quintanilla v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00159-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00159-CR ___________________________

CHERRY DAWN QUINTANILLA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 90th District Court Young County, Texas Trial Court No. CR11896

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION

In June 2022, Appellant Cherry Dawn Quintanilla pleaded guilty to the offense

of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine, a controlled substance

under Penalty Group 1, and the trial court deferred her adjudication and placed her

on community supervision for three years. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§§ 481.102(6) (“Penalty Group 1”), 481.115(b) (“Possession of Substance in Penalty

Group 1 or 1-B”). In August 2023, the State filed its second amended motion to

proceed to adjudication and alleged that Quintanilla had violated eight conditions of

her community supervision. The trial court held a hearing, found the allegations in

the State’s motion to be true,1 found Quintanilla guilty, and sentenced her to

imprisonment for eighteen months in the state jail division of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (“State Jail Felony

Punishment”). Quintanilla appealed.

Quintanilla’s court-appointed appellate attorney, after determining that the

appeal was frivolous, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that

motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400

(1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the Anders requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

1 The State alleged five violations of the condition requiring Quintanilla to refrain from using controlled substances. The trial court found three of the five alleged violations true. The State abandoned the other two.

2 grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, complying with Kelly

v. State, counsel provided Quintanilla with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw;

he informed her of her right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to

seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare her appeal frivolous; and he

sent her a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Quintanilla had the opportunity to file a pro se response

to the Anders brief but did not do so. The State declined to file a brief.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Nothing in the record arguably

supports the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We

therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 27, 2025