Marisa Juarez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 15, 2023
• Docket: 08-23-00024-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MARISA JUAREZ, § No. 08-23-00024-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § 399th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Bexar County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# 2018CR13513B)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marisa Juarez challenges the revocation of her community supervision for aggravated

robbery. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03. Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief in support of

a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The State charged Appellant by indictment with one count of aggravated robbery in

December 2018. 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03. Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. bargain, and the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a

period of eight years beginning July 15, 2019.

In January 2020, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant’s

community supervision. Rather than adjudicate, the trial court amended the conditions of

Appellant’s community supervision in an order dated February 7, 2020. The State subsequently

filed two more motions to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant’s community supervision in April

2020 and June 2021, respectively. Each time, rather than adjudicate, the trial court again amended

the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision.

In October 2022, the State filed another motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke Appellant’s

community supervision, alleging seven violations. Then later that month, the State amended the

motion, adding two more violations. At the hearing on the motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to the

State’s first allegation. 2 The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and entered a judgment of

conviction for one count of aggravated robbery. The trial court assessed punishment at eight years’

confinement and sentenced Appellant accordingly.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw along with a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief satisfies the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Id. at 744. As required by the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals, Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he has provided copies of the motion

and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a

2 The State waived and abandoned the remaining allegations after Appellant entered a plea of “true” to the first allegation.

2 pro se response, notified Appellant of her right to seek discretionary review should we find this

appeal frivolous, provided a motion to assist Appellant in obtaining the record, and supplied

Appellant with this Court’s mailing address. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 319–20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, along with the Anders brief, and we agree with

counsel’s professional assessment that the record does not present any meritorious grounds for

review. Accordingly, we find the appeal frivolous.

CONCLUSION We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

September 15, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.

(Do Not Publish)