Julio Gutierrez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: June 15, 2026
• Docket: 07-26-00104-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00104-CR

JULIO GUTIERREZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. DC-2022-CR-2808, Honorable John J. McClendon III, Presiding

June 15, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Following a plea of not guilty to murder, Appellant later

entered into an agreement with the State to plead guilty to the lesser-included offense of

manslaughter in exchange for community supervision for ten years.2 Less than a year

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

2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.04. later, the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision for failing to submit

a non-dilute urine specimen for testing and for failing to abstain from use or possession

of alcohol or narcotics.3 At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded true to both

allegations. After presentation of the evidence and arguments, the trial court found the

State’s allegations to be true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Appellant

to confinement for ten years.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies she has conducted a

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

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling

authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated she has complied with the

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to

Appellant, (2) notifying him of 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. In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).4 By letter, this Court granted

3 At the hearing, Appellant objected to proceeding on the State’s amended motion because he had

not been timely served. The trial court ruled the hearing would proceed on the State’s original motion to revoke, but the State would be allowed to present additional evidence of the violations in the original motion during punishment.

4 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 2 Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should

he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a response.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question

before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389

S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The State must prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged

in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In

a revocation context, “a preponderance of the evidence” means “that greater weight of

the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has

violated a condition of [his community supervision].” Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865 (citing

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). The trial court abuses its

discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails

to meet its burden of proof. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App.

1984). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d

419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The finding of a single violation of community

supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2012). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial

court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.

3 ANALYSIS

By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates all phases of the proceedings, adverse

rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, and Appellant’s sentence. She candidly concedes

no errors occurred during trial which would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction.

Thus, she concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal.

We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support this 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;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal

of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

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

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Do not publish.