Kathryn Margaret Trevino v. the State of Texas

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,

2

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