Joshua Tijerina v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 11, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

Nos. 11-23-00127-CR & 11-23-00128-CR
__________

JOSHUA TIJERINA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. D-19-1870-CR & D-19-2218-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joshua Tijerina, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense
of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, and the first-degree felony
offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a member of Appellant’s
family or household, or a person with whom Appellant has or has had a dating
relationship. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(1), (a)(2)–(b)(1)(A) (West
Supp. 2023); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 71.0021(b), 71.003, 71.005 (West 2019). On
July 19, 2022, the trial court deferred finding Appellant guilty, and placed him on
deferred adjudication for both offenses for a period of ten years. As conditions of
community supervision, Appellant was required to follow all state and federal laws,
report to his community supervision officer, complete an “Anger Program,” and
abstain from using alcohol and narcotics.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt
and to revoke his community supervision, then amended it twice, alleging that
Appellant committed sixteen violations of his community supervision in each case.
On June 2, 2023, the trial court held a contested hearing on the State’s second
amended motion. During the hearing, the State abandoned five of the violations
alleged, and Appellant pled “not true” to the remaining allegations. The State called
five witnesses, including law enforcement and Appellant’s community supervision
officer, then Appellant’s mother testified on his behalf. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court found nine of the violations alleged to be “true.” The trial
court adjudicated Appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, assessed
Appellant’s punishment at confinement for twenty years in the Correctional
Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for the aggravated
assault classified as a second-degree felony, and fifty years for the first-degree
felony assault. The trial court re-pronounced a $50 fine in each case, court costs,
and reimbursement fees.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw in this
court. The motions are supported by briefs for each cause in which counsel
professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and
concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided
Appellant with a copy of the briefs, a copy of the motions to withdraw, an

2
explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records.
Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s briefs, and of his right to file petitions for discretionary review.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with
the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed pro se responses to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

July 11, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1
We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3