Juan Manuel Garza v. State
11-16-00134-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Juan Manuel Garza pleaded guilty to evading arrest (third-degree felony) and, per a plea agreement, was convicted and placed on community supervision.
- The State filed an application to revoke Garza’s community supervision.
- After a contested revocation hearing, the trial court found the alleged violations true, revoked supervision, and imposed the original seven-year sentence.
- Garza’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous; counsel provided records and notice to Garza and informed him of his rights.
- The court of appeals independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and concluded the appeal is without merit.
- The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, dismissed the appeal, and advised Garza of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements | Garza (through counsel) did not directly argue; appeal implied counsel’s brief insufficient | Appellate counsel argued he complied with Anders and related Texas precedents and that no meritorious issues exist | Court found counsel complied with Anders/Schulman and related rules and allowed withdrawal |
| Whether the revocation findings were reversible error | Garza challenged revocation outcome (pro se not filed) | State argued evidence supported revocation and sentence reinstatement | Court’s independent review found no reversible error; revocation affirmed (appeal dismissed) |
| Whether appellate procedures required remand for new counsel | Garza sought relief implicitly by contesting revocation | Counsel and State asserted no arguable grounds existed to require new counsel | Court held no arguable grounds existed and did not remand; allowed withdrawal |
| Whether defendant was properly notified of PDR rights | Garza’s rights include being informed of right to file petition for discretionary review | State noted counsel must notify and clerk must provide information per rules | Court required counsel to notify and also advised Garza of PDR right; preserved his ability to seek review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s duty to file brief asserting frivolousness and court’s duty to independently review record)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Texas standard for Anders-type appellate procedures)
- In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (procedure for handling Anders briefs and pro se responses)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (remand vs. dismissal guidance under Anders/Schulman)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (related standards for Anders compliance)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (earlier Texas precedent on appellate counsel withdrawal)
- Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (historical authority on counsel responsibilities)
- Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (precedent addressing appellate procedure)
- Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (application of Anders procedures in Texas appellate context)