Jorge Pineda Guzman v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00269-CR
________________

JORGE PINEDA GUZMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00368
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Jorge Pineda Guzman guilty of the first-degree felony

offense of aggravated assault family violence with a deadly weapon causing serious

bodily injury. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2), (b)(1)(A). 1 The jury assessed

Guzman’s punishment at life in prison and assessed a $10,000 fine.

We cite to the current version of the statute because the subsequent
1

amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
1
On appeal, Guzman’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents

counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On April 9, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Guzman

to file a pro se brief. Guzman filed a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits

of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine

either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that

it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable

grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel

may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

We have determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support the appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

2
Guzman may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
2
AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on August 5, 2024
Opinion Delivered August 14, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

3