Melody Garcia v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00220-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MELODY GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT
OF BEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

Appellant Melody Garcia pleaded guilty to the offenses of tampering with physical

evidence and possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility, both third-

degree felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 37.09(a)(1), 37.09(c), 38.1, 38.11(g). On

June 16, 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years’ imprisonment, suspended

the sentence, and placed her on community supervision for five years. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.053(a). The State filed a motion to revoke on December 18,

2023, and at the hearing on the motion appellant pleaded true to violating the terms of

her community supervision. The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision

and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment on both counts to run concurrently with

credit for time served.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We

affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Counsel states in his brief that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and that

“no non-frivolous basis for appeal exists.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as

it presents a thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable

grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically

advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record

references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) notified

appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant

with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her rights to file a pro se

2
response,1 to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek discretionary

review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form

motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature

and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. In this case, appellant did not file a motion seeking pro se

access to the appellate record and did not file a pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

no arguable reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the

issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the

court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed

a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no

pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing

the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion

1 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3
to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is

frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise her of her right to file a petition for

discretionary review, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.2 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206

S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

V. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of July, 2025.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file
a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this
Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

4