Sergio Musquiz, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00288-CR SERGIO MUSQUIZ, JR., APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B18299-1002, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding January 26, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Sergio Musquiz, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to the offense of taking prohibited substances or items into a correctional facility.1 Pursuant to the guilty plea, appellant was sentenced to confinement for five years with the term of confinement being suspended and appellant being placed on community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. Appellant’s community supervision was then continued and extended for five years. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11 (West 2011). Thereafter, the State filed a second motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. On this occasion, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and sentenced appellant to serve five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant perfected his appeal and we will affirm. Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. 2 App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
