Julio Cesar Chavez 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 Nos. 07-22-00106-CR JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 64th District Court of Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. A21231-1909, Honorable Danah L. Zirpoli, Presiding September 7, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Julio Cesar Chavez, appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of assault against a family or household member by impeding breathing or circulation, a third-degree felony. Originally and pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of said charges. The trial court assessed a six-year sentence, which sentence it suspended. Then, appellant was placed on community supervision for six years. Following the State’s first motion to revoke in June 2020, appellant was continued on community supervision, this time with modified conditions and an additional year of supervision. When appellant continued to violate the conditions of community supervision, including repeated, prohibited contact with the victim of the original offense, the State again moved to revoke. Appellant pleaded true to all the State’s allegations in its motion. The trial court found those allegations true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced appellant to serve his original six-year sentence in prison. It also assessed a $3,000 fine. Appellant perfected this appeal. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders brief.1 Through those documents, he certified to the Court that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion was a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there is no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the appellate record. By letter dated July 18, 2022, this Court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by August 17, 2022. To date, none has been received from appellant. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal. Counsel addressed myriad issues, including the voluntariness of appellant’s plea, sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of the sentence imposed, and effectiveness of trial counsel. Candidly, counsel acknowledges that issues associated with the original plea proceeding would not be properly before a court reviewing the revocation proceeding. Counsel ultimately concludes that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). We found none. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.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. 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.
