Gregorio Manuel Baladez v. State, 13-17-00100-CR

In April 2015, Gregorio Manuel Baladez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (third-degree felony) and received a ten-year sentence probated for three years of community supervision with conditions (community service, drug-offender course, fees/fines).
In January 2017 the State filed an amended motion to revoke supervision alleging multiple violations: new criminal offenses (evading/resisting arrest; two family-violence assaults), failures to report, and numerous monetary and programmatic defaults (costs, fees, restitution, fines, community service, drug program, attorney’s fees).
After an evidentiary hearing the trial court found all alleged violations true, revoked community supervision, and imposed the original ten-year confinement sentence.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous and moved to withdraw; counsel followed Kelly notice requirements and provided Baladez opportunity to file pro se materials.
Baladez filed a pro se brief complaining of constitutional and procedural errors (Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments; criminal procedure provisions). The Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, affirmed the revocation, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. No substitute counsel was appointed; Baladez was advised of discretionary-review options.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to revoke community supervision	Baladez argued revocation was improper (raised constitutional and procedural objections)	State argued the trial evidence proved the alleged violations and supported revocation	Court found evidence supported the violations and affirmed revocation
Adequacy of appointed counsel on appeal	Baladez complained about appointed counsel’s performance	Counsel submitted an Anders brief, asserting no non-frivolous appellate issues and moved to withdraw after following Kelly notices	Court concluded Anders brief complied with requirements, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw
Requirement for independent appellate review under Anders	Baladez contended errors merited reversal	State urged appellate review should confirm no reversible error	Court conducted full review (Penson/Schulman standards) and found no reversible error
Procedural protections for post-A nders steps (notice, record access, PDR options)	Baladez asserted procedural and constitutional violations related to revocation and counsel	State maintained procedures satisfied statutory and case-law requirements	Court confirmed counsel provided required notices and instructions; advised Baladez of right to seek discretionary review

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (legal standard for counsel filing brief when appeal is frivolous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (requirement for independent appellate review when Anders brief filed)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Texas guidance on Anders brief content and withdrawal procedure)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (notice and procedures counsel must follow when filing Anders brief)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (appellate courts’ approach to Anders briefs and pro se filings)
Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (granting counsel’s motion to withdraw after Anders compliance)