Juan Garcia v. The State of Texas Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00510-CR Juan GARCIA, Appellant v. The State of /s The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR1531 Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2014 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Following the denial of his motion to suppress, appellant pled no contest, pursuant to a plea bargain, to possession of a firearm (habitual). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years confinement. Appellant s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant was informed of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a pro se brief. 04-13-00510-CR When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we may either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error, or (2) determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, we have reviewed the record, counsel s brief, appellant s pro se brief, and the case law on which appellant relies for his arguments. We conclude there is no reversible error and this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Therefore, we affirm the trial court s judgment and grant appellate counsel s motion to withdraw. 1 Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Do not publish 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or 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 comply with the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 68.4. -2-
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.
