Sabrina Olarosa Garcia v. The State of Texas Appeal from 253rd District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00236-CR __________________ SABRINA OLAROSA GARCIA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR34235 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant for murder with a deadly weapon (a firearm), a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). The trial court rejected Garcia’s plea agreement with the State for a punishment of ten years of confinement in exchange for her plea of guilty to the charged offense. Garcia waived her right to a jury trial, pleaded guilty to the offense, and elected to have the trial court assess punishment. The trial court sentenced Garcia to life in prison. Garcia timely filed her appeal. 1 On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Garcia to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Garcia. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 Garcia may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1 AFFIRMED. LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on February 13, 2024 Opinion Delivered February 21, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. 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.
