Jose Luz Preciado v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 20, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00091-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00091-CR __________________

JOSE LUZ PRECIADO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-08-11684-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jose Luz Preciado pleaded

guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated subsequent offense, a third-degree

felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04. The trial court found Preciado guilty of

the offense of felony driving while intoxicated, sentenced Preciado to ten years of

confinement, and assessed a $2,000 fine, but suspended the sentence and placed

Preciado on community supervision for six years. 1 Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision,

alleging that Preciado had violated the terms and conditions of his community

supervision. Preciado pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations. After conducting

an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found all the allegations to be “true,” found the

evidence was sufficient to prove Preciado violated the terms of his community

supervision, revoked Preciado’s community supervision, and assessed punishment

at ten years of confinement.

Preciado’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; counsel

also filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 9, 2023, we

granted an extension of time for Preciado to file a pro se brief. We received no

response from Preciado.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

2 v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on September 13, 2023 Opinion Delivered September 20, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1Preciado may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3