Roberto Lopez Avila v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 6, 2024
• Docket: 14-23-00784-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 6, 2024

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00784-CR

ROBERTO LOPEZ AVILA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 278th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18-0006CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After pleading guilty to possession of Alprazolam, a controlled substance weighing 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams,1 and accepting a nonbinding plea bargain, the trial court in 2018 placed appellant Roberto Lopez Avila on 10-years deferred-adjudication community supervision with a $4,000 fine. In 2022 the State filed a motion to adjudicate for violations of the conditions of community

1 See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.104, .117. supervision. The trial court found one of the violations of the terms of community supervision true—possession of methamphetamine—and adjudicated appellant’s guilt and assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years. 2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant did not file a response.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Poissant.

2 The Supreme Court of Texas ordered the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of Texas to transfer this appeal (No. 10-23-00280-CR) to this court. Misc. Docket No. 23-9079 (Tex. Sept. 26, 2023); see Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 73.001, .002. Because of the transfer, we decide the case in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court under principles of stare decisis if our decision otherwise would have been inconsistent with the transferor court's precedent. See Tex. R. App. 41.3.

2 Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)