Carmina Padroz v. State, 13-15-00195-CR

Carmina Padroz judicially confessed to possession of marijuana (second-degree felony) and received ten years of deferred-adjudication community supervision.
The State moved to adjudicate and revoke supervision after Padroz violated multiple supervision conditions (failures to report, submit to urinalysis, attend required meetings, and to pay fees, restitution, costs, and fines), and after Padroz left Texas on a travel permit and failed to return; she was arrested in Arizona in 2014 and extradited in 2015.
Padroz pleaded true to all alleged violations; the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no non-frivolous appellate issues; counsel complied with notification and record-access procedures required by Texas authority.
Padroz did not file a pro se response or seek pro se access to the record; the court of appeals conducted an independent review of the record.
The court of appeals found the appeal wholly frivolous, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw; appellant was advised of the right to seek discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there are reversible errors after adjudication and sentencing following plea of true to violations	Padroz (through counsel) raised no arguable errors in the Anders brief	State urged affirmance based on record showing valid plea, violations, and proper revocation	Court: No reversible error; appeal is frivolous; judgment affirmed
Whether counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw were adequate	Counsel argued brief met Anders/Schulman requirements and notified client of rights and record access	State did not oppose adequacy; compliance shown in record	Court: Counsel complied with Anders/Schulman/Kelly requirements; withdrawal granted
Whether independent review by court of appeals was sufficient absent a pro se response	Padroz did not file pro se response or request record access	State relied on court’s independent review powers under Penson/Bledsoe	Court: Performed full review and found no arguable grounds; satisfied Rule 47.1 requirements
Whether substitute counsel must be appointed to pursue discretionary review	Padroz sought no counsel or pro se action in the record	State argued no need for substitute where appeal is frivolous and no request made	Court: No substitute counsel appointed; appellant may file PDR pro se or retain counsel

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires appointed counsel to brief why appeal is frivolous and permits counsel to move to withdraw)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (appellate court must independently review record when counsel files an Anders brief)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas standards for Anders briefs and required record references/notifications)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural guidance for counsel notice and record access in Anders contexts)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (counsel must explain why no reversible error exists and notify appellant of rights)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (addressing counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (options for appellate court after Anders brief and pro se response)
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (withdrawal procedure when appointed counsel finds appeal frivolous)
Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (procedural rules regarding counsel’s duties after court of appeals decision)
Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997) (pro se responses considered even if they do not comply with appellate rules)