Guadalupe Navarro v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00384-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 13, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00384-CR ——————————— GUADALUPE NAVARRO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 98177-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a home invasion at a beach house in Brazoria County

that resulted in the death of Larry Ortiz, Jr. Guadalupe Navarro, who participated in

the home invasion with other armed assailants, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of murder.1 And a jury assessed her punishment at 75-years’

confinement and a $10,000 fine. Navarro appealed.

On appeal, Navarro’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the

appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967).

In his Anders brief, counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the record

and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193

S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief

meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the

record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978).

Further, Navarro’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the

motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Navarro and informed her of her right to

access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.01(B)(1), (2).

2 Navarro received a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and

this Court granted her a 30-day extension of time in which to file a pro se response.

Navarro filed a response to the Anders brief, in which she contends that trial counsel

was ineffective because “he allowed me to plead guilty on a murder I did not

commit.” However, the jury was charged on the law of parties. That Navarro was

not the shooter does not prevent her conviction for murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE

§ 7.02. Navarro also contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel

because (1) trial counsel promised that she would receive “no more than 40 years”

if she pleaded guilty, and (2) the court system in Brazoria County was biased against

her because the victim’s brother was an “authoritive [sic] figure of some sort” there.

Neither of these claims have any support in the record.

The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,

193 S.W.3d at 155. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that

there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines,

after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner

v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Perry Stevens must immediately

send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.

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

2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Navarro of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 4