Susie Bianca Magallanes v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00173-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00173-CR

Susie Bianca Magallanes, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 21st District Court of Burleson County, Texas Hon. Reva Towslee Corbett, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 16595

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Susie Bianca Magallanes violated eight terms and

conditions of her deferred adjudication community supervision for possession

of a controlled substance and tampering or fabricating physical evidence with

intent to impair. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115; TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(c). As a result, the trial court found Smith guilty

of each count, assessed Smith’s punishment at two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division on each count, and

ordered that they run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35. This

appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Magallanes’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined Magallanes v. State Page 2 the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Magallanes is

granted.

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 27, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

Magallanes v. State Page 3