Cruz Tijerina v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 364th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0369-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JUNE 5, 2007
______________________________
CRUZ TIJERINA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2004-406077; HONORABLE BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Cruz Tijerina filed a notice of appeal following his conviction for
possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, and the accompanying sentence of
incarceration. We agree with appointed counsel’s conclusion that the record fails to show
any meritorious issue which would support the appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant, while represented by counsel, entered an open plea of guilty to the
charged offense. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and, following hearing, the trial
court rejected appellant’s request to be placed on community supervision and assessed
punishment at five years confinement.
Counsel for appellant has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). The brief discusses the factual and
procedural history of the case and evidence presented. In conformity with counsel’s
obligation to support the appeal to the best of his ability, Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d
641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref’d), the brief discusses four potential issues on
appeal and explains why they do not show reversible error. Counsel thus concludes the
appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
Counsel has certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have
been served on appellant, and that counsel has advised appellant of his right to review the
record and file a pro se response. Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 645. By letter, this court also
notified appellant of his right to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has filed a letter with this court in which he
indicates he has been unsuccessful in finding any grounds to proceed with a response,
and asks us to review the record.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will
not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this court
determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new
counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
2
Our review of counsel's brief, including his discussion of potential appellate issues,
and the record convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a thorough review of the
record. We also have independently examined the entire record in the case to determine
whether there are any non-frivolous grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have found no such
grounds. After reviewing the record before us, we agree with counsel that the appeal is
frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted1 and we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
1
In granting counsel’s motion to withdraw, however, we remind counsel of the
“educational”duty to inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App.
2006).
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.