Guillermo Carlos Rangel, Jr. v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00594-CR

Guillermo Carlos Rangel, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 453RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
NO. CR-21-3335-C, THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O RANDUM O PINIO N

A jury found Appellant Guillermo Rangel, Jr., guilty of one count of second-degree

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two counts of third-degree deadly conduct—

discharge firearm. See Tex. Penal Code §§22.02(a)(2), .05(b)(1). The trial court sentenced him to

fifteen years’ confinement for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and seven years’

confinement for each of the two counts of deadly conduct—discharge firearm. All sentences were

to run concurrently. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

along with a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and presents no arguably meritorious

issues. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he
provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the

appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining

the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders,

386 U.S. at 744. Appellant did not file a pro se response.

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of

the trial proceedings and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for

review and that the appeal is frivolous.

We affirm the judgments of conviction and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________
Maggie Ellis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: August 29, 2025

Do Not Publish

2