Martha Lorena Camargo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-11-00142-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MARTHA LORENA CAMARGO, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Martha Lorena Camargo appeals her conviction for injury to a child. Appellant s counsel filed a brief asserting 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). We affirm. BACKGROUND A Smith County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant alleging that she committed the offense of injury to a child, a third degree felony. 1 The indictment also alleged that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of or immediate flight from the offense. Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense and pleaded true to the deadly weapon allegation. After hearing testimony from both the State s and Appellant s witnesses, a jury assessed punishment at eight years of imprisonment. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West 2011). states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he 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. 2 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 considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered April 18, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief. 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.
