Sabrina Olarosa Garcia v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 21, 2024
• Docket: 09-23-00236-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00236-CR __________________

SABRINA OLAROSA GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR34235 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant for murder with a deadly weapon (a firearm),

a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). The trial court rejected

Garcia’s plea agreement with the State for a punishment of ten years of confinement

in exchange for her plea of guilty to the charged offense. Garcia waived her right to

a jury trial, pleaded guilty to the offense, and elected to have the trial court assess

punishment. The trial court sentenced Garcia to life in prison. Garcia timely filed her

appeal.

1 On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has

reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Garcia to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Garcia.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found

none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Garcia may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on February 13, 2024 Opinion Delivered February 21, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.