Geneva Doris Vasquez v. State, 12-14-00283-CR

Appellant Geneva Vasquez pled guilty to burglary of a habitation in 2014-0421 and to probation-violation in 2012-0039; sentencing occurred on August 29, 2014 with concurrent terms (2 years State Jail for credit card abuse and 15 years ID-TDCJ for burglary).
The trial court issued pre-sentence investigation; a sentencing hearing followed; appellant admitted to violating probation and pled guilty to burglary.
Rights advisements included an erroneous waiver of appellate rights in the plea admonishments, though later recertifications were filed and counsel appointed to pursue appeal.
The appellate court granted recertifications of right to appeal in both causes after the court’s abatement/remand order, and appointed counsel for appeal.
Appellant’s Anders brief asserts six issues, with the plan to withdraw and allow a pro se brief if necessary; issues center on probation-revocation discretion, waiver of appeal, voluntariness/admonishments, admission of exhibit, and proportionality of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probation revocation—abuse of discretion?	Vasquez argues the court abused discretion in revoking probation.	State asserts sufficiency of proof and standard of review support revocation.	No abuse; single-violation suffices; discretion lies with trial court.
Waiver of right to appeal on guilt/innocence?	Waiver of appeal was ineffective due to Delaney/Young standards and timing.	Waiver valid or harmless error?	Waiver ineffective; substantive rights to appeal preserved.
Voluntariness and proper admonishments for guilty plea?	Admonishments and waiver of appeal were flawed; plea may be involuntary.	Plea was voluntary; range-of-punishment admonitions given; substantial compliance.	Plea voluntary; any admonishment defects not reversible under standards cited.
Admission of State’s Exhibit One and trial objections?	Exhibit admitted without objection; potential error preserved by limited objection.	Trial court acted within discretion; objections not preserved.	No reversible error; admission within discretion.
Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence?	Sentence disproportionate to offenses; cruel/unusual punishment claim.	Sentence within statutory ranges; no preserved error.	No due-process violation; sentences within statutory bounds; error not preserved.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes Anders procedure for frivolous-brief withdrawal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (probation-revocation standard of proof by preponderance of evidence)
Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (preservation of evidentiary errors; standard on objections)
Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (cruel and unusual punishment review framework; preserved issues)