Danny Medina v. The State of Texas Appeal from 64th District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00328-CR DANNY MEDINA, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A19823-1412, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding June 17, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Danny Medina, entered a plea of guilty before a jury to the offense of credit card abuse,1 a state jail felony offense. Following a trial before the jury on punishment, the jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for a period of two years and a fine of $2,000. Appellant has appealed, and we will affirm. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.31(b)(1)(A), (d) (West 2011). 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. [Panel Op.] 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. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). 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 clerk’s record and the reporter’s 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 filed no 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, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 2 826–27 (Tex. Crim. 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.
