Ronnie James Lopez a/k/a Mario Garza v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-06-00742-CR
Ronnie James L PEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-CR-9022W
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

 

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2007

 

AFFIRMED

Ronnie L pez pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of unauthorized use of a vehicle. L pez was placed on community supervision for a term of four years for the offense. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke L pez's community supervision, alleging L pez had violated the terms of his community supervision by committing the offense of possession of marijuana and failing to report to his supervision officer. After a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court revoked L pez's community supervision and sentenced L pez to two years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and fined him $1,200. We affirm.

L pez's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to L pez, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Catherine Stone, Justice

 

Do Not Publish

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.