Jesus Armando Flores v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00074-CR

JESUS ARMANDO FLORES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A22252-2211, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding

July 13, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Following Appellant’s plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, third or more 1, with

an agreed recommendation as to punishment, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five

years’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence and placed him on community

supervision for five years. Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported

1 TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 49.04, 49.09(b). by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California. 2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2023, Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. The trial

suspended Appellant’s five-year sentence and placed Appellant on community

supervision for five years with several conditions. On September 19, 2025, the State filed

a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. By two issues, the State alleged Appellant

tested positive for cocaine and failed to attend and successfully complete the Hale County

Drug Court program in violation of specific conditions of Appellant’s community

supervision. On December 22, 2025, the trial court heard the motion for revocation.

Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial

court revoked community supervision, reformed the judgment, and sentenced Appellant

to three years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely brought this appeal.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

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

arguable grounds of error. Id. at 744–45; 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 candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities,

the record presents no reversible error and no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel has

demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by

(1) providing copies of the brief and the appellate record to Appellant, (2) notifying him of

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right

to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408;

see also 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 on April 24, 2026, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise

his right to file a response to counsel’s motion and a pro se brief by May 26, 2026, should

he be so inclined. To date, Appellant has done neither nor otherwise contacted the Court.

The State has not favored us with a brief.

ANALYSIS

By his Anders brief, counsel evaluated all phases of the proceedings, all adverse

rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, and Appellant’s assistance of counsel. He

candidly discussed potential issues and conceded no errors occurred during trial which

would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Thus, he concluded there are no non-

frivolous issues to present on appeal, and the appeal is without merit and wholly 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,

but 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). So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and

counsel’s brief, we (1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s

3 conviction, (2) affirm the trial court’s judgment, and (3) grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 3

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Laura A.W. Pratt Justice

Do not publish.

3 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall (1) send Appellant a copy

of the opinion and judgment and (2) inform Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and 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. 4