Daniel Florez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 12, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00433-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00433-CR

DANIEL FLOREZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 46th District Court Wilbarger County, Texas Trial Court No. 12,898, Honorable Cornell Curtis, Presiding

July 12, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

In January 2023, Appellant, Daniel Florez, pleaded guilty to the offense of arson,

a second-degree felony,1 pursuant to a plea agreement. The trial court sentenced him to

eight years of deferred adjudication community supervision with conditions and assessed

a fine of $4,000. On March 8, 2023, the State filed its First Amended Motion to Proceed

With an Adjudication of Guilt, alleging that Appellant had violated four conditions of his

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 28.02(a), (d). community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s Motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to

violating conditions three and twenty-nine2 of his community supervision by assaulting his

spouse and having contact with his spouse. He pleaded “not true” to the State’s

remaining allegations. After hearing testimony, the trial court found that Appellant had

violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of arson.

Appellant was sentenced to sixteen years of confinement and a $5,000 fine. In this

appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We affirm the judgment

and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In support of her motion, counsel has certified that she has conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and, in her opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. 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

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw, provided him with a copy of counsel’s

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

2 Condition three required that Appellant “[c]ommit no offense against the laws of this State or any

other state or the United States.” Condition twenty-nine required that Appellant “have no contact” with his spouse.

2 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant did not file a response. The State has not

filed a brief.

In her Anders brief, counsel discusses possible areas in the record where error

may have occurred, but concludes that any appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. 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 grounds for appellate

review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted3 and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Lawrence M. Doss 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.