Susie Bianca Magallanes v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00173-CR

Susie Bianca Magallanes,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
21st District Court of Burleson County, Texas
Hon. Reva Towslee Corbett, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 16595

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Susie Bianca Magallanes violated eight terms and

conditions of her deferred adjudication community supervision for possession

of a controlled substance and tampering or fabricating physical evidence with

intent to impair. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115; TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09(c). As a result, the trial court found Smith guilty

of each count, assessed Smith’s punishment at two years confinement in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division on each count, and

ordered that they run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.35. This

appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Magallanes’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined
Magallanes v. State Page 2
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Magallanes is

granted.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 27, 2025
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
CR25

Magallanes v. State Page 3