Beatriz Perez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00782-CR Beatriz PEREZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2004-CR-7657 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 6, 2010 AFFIRMED In accordance with a plea-bargain agreement, Beatriz Perez pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. Three years later, the State filed a motion to revoke Perez s community supervision and enter an adjudication of guilt, alleging that Perez had violated the terms of her community supervision by committing a new offense murder. After Perez was found guilty of that murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment for that murder, the trial 04-09-00782-CR court held a revocation hearing with respect to this case. The trial court found that Perez had violated the terms of her community supervision by committing murder. The trial court then revoked her community supervision, found her guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced her to twenty years imprisonment. Perez timely filed a notice of appeal. Her court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which she raises three arguable points of error, but nonetheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that Perez was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Perez did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. -2- 04-09-00782-CR See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. Karen Angelini, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -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.
