Monique Desirea Galindo v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2020
• Docket: 11-20-00069-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed October 22, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals _________________

Nos. 11-20-00068-CR & 11-20-00069-CR _________________

MONIQUE DESIREA GALINDO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. D-18-1995-CR & D-18-2137-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Monique Desirea Galindo, originally pleaded guilty to the offenses of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and endangering a child. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreements, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt in each cause and placed Appellant on community supervision for four years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt in each cause. Appellant pleaded not true to all of the State’s allegations, and the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Based upon the undisputed evidence, the trial court found several of the State’s allegations to be true, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her guilty of the charged offenses, assessed her punishment in each cause at confinement for four years in Cause No. D-18-1995-CR and at eighteen months in a state jail facility in Cause No. D-18-2137-CR, and ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each cause. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In each cause, counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of her right to review the records and file a response to counsel’s briefs. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree that the appeals are without merit. We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Furthermore, absent a void judgment, issues relating to an original plea proceeding may not be raised in a subsequent appeal from the revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785–86 (Tex. 2 Crim. App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Based upon our review of the records, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 The motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

October 22, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.