Regina Romero v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted, Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 7, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00100-CR REGINA ROMERO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13-16232 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a habitation. On April 8, 2013, pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but suspended the punishment and placed appellant on community supervision for seven years, ordering restitution and assessing a fine of $750. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant s community supervision, alleging appellant had violated the conditions of community supervision. Appellant entered a plea of true to three violations. On December 9, 2013, the trial court signed a judgment revoking appellant s community supervision and sentencing her to confinement for seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). On April 29, 2014, this court ordered a copy of the record provided to appellant. On May 5, 2014, the trial court certified that it had provided the record to appellant. On June 3, 2014, this court notified appellant by order that if she wished to file a response to counsel s Anders brief, it was required to be filed on or before July 28, 2014. See Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13; S.W.3d , 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). As of this date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or a request for an extension of time to file a response. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 2 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
