Alejandro Carrasco, Jr. v. The State of TexasAppeal from 242nd District Court of Castro County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-12-00478-CR ALEJANDRO CARRASCO, JR., APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Castro County, Texas Trial Court No. B3181-0807, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding July 19, 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Alejandro Carrasco, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver1 in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. Pursuant to the plea bargain, appellant was placed on community supervision for a period of eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant s community supervision. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community 1 See TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (c) (West 2010). supervision and revoked his community supervision and ordered appellant to serve a period of eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. Appellant s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744 45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with 2 counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed. 2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.