Michael Angelo Garcia v. The State of TexasAppeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00665-CR Michael Angelo Garcia, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 11-1686-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Angelo Garcia pled guilty to the offense of possession of 400 grams or more of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver, and a jury assessed a sentence of sixty years imprisonment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(f) (West 2010). Garcia s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Garcia and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Garcia requested and received three extensions of time to file his pro se brief but ultimately failed to do so. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 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). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous, and his motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Jeff Rose, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Rose Affirmed Filed: August 20, 2013 Do Not Publish 2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.