Adeli Medina Carranza v. State
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00139-CR ADELI MEDINA CARRANZA, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 26186
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Adeli Medina Carranza pled guilty to and was convicted of possession of more than one, but less than four, grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone. After Carranza pled “true” to the State’s enhancement allegation, the trial court sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. Carranza appeals.1
Carranza’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On December 14, 2015, counsel mailed to Carranza copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Carranza was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se response, and he requested an extension of time to do so. This Court granted Carranza’s request and informed him that his pro se response was due on February 15, 2016. Following a second request for extension of time, which we granted, we informed Carranza that his pro se response was due on or before March 16, 2016. To date, Carranza has not filed a pro se response.2
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with appointed counsel that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.3
Ralph K. Burgess Justice
Date Submitted: April 6, 2016 Date Decided: May 3, 2016 Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.