Adriana Leticia Avila v. The State of Texas Appeal from 244th District Court of Ector County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-18-00136-CR ADRIANA LETICIA AVILA, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court No. C-16-0673-CR, Honorable James M. Rush, Presiding August 17, 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Adriana Leticia Avila, appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating her guilty of aggregated theft, a state jail felony, after finding she had violated her community supervision. Appellant timely appealed and was appointed counsel. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders1 brief in the cause. Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). informing appellant of her counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated July 3, 2018, this Court also notified appellant of her right to file her own response by August 2, 2018. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which included whether appellant’s plea of true was voluntary, the trial court had jurisdiction, whether counsel was reasonably effective, and the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s decision. However, counsel then explained why all the issues lacked merit. We also point out that appellant pled true to the single allegation found in the State’s motion and that such a plea of true, alone, is sufficient to support revocation. See Reyes v. State, No. 07-17-00404-CR, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 3451 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such arguable error was uncovered. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 2
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.
