Chayanne Daniel Gallardo v. The State of Texas Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued July 24, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00090-CR ——————————— CHAYANNE DANIEL GALLARDO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1485924 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Chayanne Daniel Gallardo, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.1 The trial found appellant guilty, assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years, and certified that appellant had the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has informed the Court that she delivered a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citations omitted); In re Schulman, 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2011). 2 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2 Attorney Mandy Miller must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. 2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4
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.
