Rosanne Belen Cantu v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 10, 2011
• Docket: 07-11-00174-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-11-0174-CR NO. 07-11-0175-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOVEMBER 10, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROSANNE BELEN CANTU,

Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee ___________________________

FROM THE 100[TH] DISTRICT COURT OF COLLINGSWORTH COUNTY;

NOS. 2768 & 2777; HONORABLE STUART MESSER, PRESIDING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Memorandum Opinion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Rosanne Belen Cantu (appellant) appeals her convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest. Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate her guilt and appellant pled true to all allegations in the motion. At the close of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced her to sixteen years for aggravated assault and two years for evading arrest. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response pro se. By letter dated October 3, 2011, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by November 2, 2011, if she wished to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal. They included the 1) sufficiency of the evidence and 2) effectiveness of trial counsel. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel's conclusions.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.