Teodoro Vasquez v. The State of TexasAppeal from 2nd 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00357-CR Teodoro VASQUEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 10-2314-CR Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Teodoro Vasquez pled guilty to indecency with a child by contact and received deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of six years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke his community supervision alleging that Vasquez violated two conditions of his community supervision, Condition No. 28 by failing to participate and cooperate in sex offender treatment and Condition No. 35 by having a third party communication about the victim. Vasquez pled not true to both alleged violations. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Vasquez violated Condition No. 28. The court adjudicated 04-12-00357-CR Vasquez guilty and revoked his community supervision. The court sentenced Vasquez to twelve years imprisonment and assessed $502 in court costs. Vasquez now appeals. We affirm the trial court s judgment. Vasquez s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Vasquez with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Vasquez did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See id. Appellate counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Vasquez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be -2- 04-12-00357-CR forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
