Juan Arturo Martinez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 64th District Court of Castro County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00062-CR JUAN ARTURO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court Castro County, Texas Trial Court No. A3522-1401, Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli, Presiding December 15, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J. and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Juan Arturo Martinez, appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to a state jail facility for two years and assessing a $2,000 fine. Before having been placed on five years’ community supervision, the trial court convicted him of possessing a controlled substance, sentenced him to two years in a state jail facility, and suspended that sentence. In July of 2019, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision. The motion was granted by the trial court after hearing and accepting appellant’s plea of true to four alleged instances of him violating terms of his probation. On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Counsel certified that he conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and, in his opinion, the record reflected no reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In a letter to appellant, his counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw and provided him with a copy of the motion and his Anders brief. He also provided Appellant with a copy of the appellate record and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a response. Nor has the State has filed a response brief. We reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent search of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. Like appellant’s counsel, we too found none. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Thus, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.2 Per Curiam Do not publish. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 Counsel, shall, within five days after this memorandum opinion is handed down, send Appellant 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. This duty is an informational one only. Counsel has no duty to provide further representation to appellant. 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.
