Raul Andres Gutierrez v. the State of Texas

In the Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00448-CR ___________________________

RAUL ANDRES GUTIERREZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR13561

Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION Raul Andres Gutierrez appeals his conviction and ten-year sentence for tampering with evidence. Gutierrez had been on community supervision, but the trial court revoked his community supervision after Gutierrez pleaded true to using cocaine in violation of his probation conditions.

Gutierrez’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. California, representing that her “thorough and conscientious examination of the record, the facts of the case, and its procedural history” shows no “plausible points of error.” 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Gutierrez did not file a pro se response, and the State did not file a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

/s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: April 29, 2021