Kathryn Margaret Trevino v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: May 12, 2026
• Docket: 03-25-00335-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00335-CR

Kathryn Margaret Trevino, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CR26,250, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kathryn Margaret Trevino entered a guilty plea to burglary of a habitation. The

trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Trevino on community supervision for five

years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Trevino’s guilt, alleging she violated terms

of the community supervision order. After a hearing, the trial court found all but one of the

alleged violations true, adjudicated Trevino’s guilt, and sentenced her to confinement for two

years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Trevino filed a

timely notice of appeal. Trevino’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to

withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Trevino’s court-appointed attorney’s

brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and

demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82

(1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both

that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . .

frivolous”). Trevino’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion

and brief to Trevino; advised Trevino of her right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se

brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. He

also provided to Trevino a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only

Trevino’s signature and the date and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Trevino has not filed a pro se brief nor

a motion for extension of time to file a brief.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree

with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: May 12, 2026

Do Not Publish