Juan Lucas Garcia v. The State of TexasAppeal from 426th District Court of Bell County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00441-CR Juan Lucas Garcia, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 68903, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant Juan Lucas Garcia pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for seven years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging that Garcia had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by, among other things, using drugs and failing to report to his communitysupervision officer as ordered. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, Garcia pleaded true to the State s allegations and testified in his defense. Garcia claimed that he had tried to comply with the conditions of his community supervision but that certain circumstances had prevented him from doing so. These circumstances included difficulty in finding a place to live, stress, and weather conditions and transportation issues that, according to Garcia, made it difficult to meet with his probation officer. No other witnesses testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found the State s allegations to be true, adjudicated Garcia guilty of the underlying offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Garcia s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Garcia was mailed a copy of counsel s brief and advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose Affirmed Filed: March 22, 2013 Do Not Publish 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.
