Abel Garcia Sanchez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 64th District Court of Hale County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0196-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
______________________________
ABEL GARCIA SANCHEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. A13486-9908; HON. JACK R. MILLER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Abel Garcia Sanchez (appellant) appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation
and from a final judgment revoking his probation. Originally, appellant pled guilty and,
pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. However, the
sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on seven years probation.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, and appellant pled true to
various grounds which the State asserted as allegedly justifying the revocation. The trial
court granted the motion, revoked appellant’s probation, and reduced his sentence to five
years in prison.
Appellant timely noticed his appeal, and counsel was appointed.
Appellant’s counsel then moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and representing that he
had searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief
illustrated that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file
his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared
to file had to be filed by November 8, 2002. To date, appellant has filed no pro se
response or brief.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
two potential areas for appeal which were founded upon 1) the involuntariness of
appellant’s plea and 2) ineffective assistance of counsel. However, appellate counsel then
satisfactorily explained why the arguments lacked merit.
After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error.
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant represented
to the court via the plea admonishment papers that he was 1) properly indicted, 2)
represented by legal counsel, and 3) mentally competent when he entered his plea.
Moreover, no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of appellant’s guilty plea
complaining of error occurring at that time. Thus, we have no jurisdiction over any
purported error arising from or prior to the plea hearing. Manuel v. State, 944 S.W.2d 658,
661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App.
2001). So too does the appellate record contain evidence 1) substantiating his guilt, 2)
indicating that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and 3) supporting the decision
2
to revoke probation. Finally, the punishment levied was within the range provided by
statute and agreed to by the parties.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
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.
