Armando Garcia Martinez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-07-00227-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ARMANDO GARCIA MARTINEZ, APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Armando Garcia Martinez appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated assault. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The State waived the filing of a brief. We affirm.

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault. There was no plea agreement, but pursuant to the 114th District Court s timely pass for plea procedure, the trial court considered the evidence, deferred a finding of guilt, and placed Appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. Appellant accepted that punishment and waived his right to appeal. Thereafter, the State filed several applications to adjudicate Appellant s guilt. In the third application, the State alleged that Appellant had committed new offenses, failed to report, and committed other violations of his community supervision agreement. Appellant pleaded true to more than a dozen allegations, and the trial court adjudicated his guilt and assessed punishment at twenty years of imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that she is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.

We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered March 31, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)