Joe Anthony Madrid v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 22, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00272-CR
__________

JOE ANTHONY MADRID, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-21-1177-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant, Joe Anthony Madrid, guilty of two counts of
aggravated robbery, first-degree felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03
(West 2019). Appellant pled “true” to the enhancement allegation, and the jury
assessed his punishment on each count at imprisonment for twenty-five years in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See PENAL
§ 12.42(c)(1). The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly—the sentences to
run concurrently. Because we agree with Appellant’s court-appointed counsel that
there are no arguable issues to present on appeal, we affirm. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
During the guilt-innocence phase of trial, the State presented the testimony of
eleven witnesses, including the two robbery victims—employees of two separate
convenience stores on the south side of Odessa. Around 11:55 p.m. on June 26, a
green Ford Expedition was “parked at a gas pump” at the first convenience store,
(the DK), and Appellant exited from the passenger side. A witness saw Appellant
holding a handgun and wearing a mask as he walked into the store. Appellant
“cocked [the] gun, . . . went up to the register[,] and pointed the gun at [the victim].”
After he demanded money and cigarettes with the “gun in [the victim’s] face,” he
fled with his co-actor in the Expedition. Law enforcement arrived soon thereafter to
speak to the victim and witness, take photographs, and review surveillance footage.
From the DK, Appellant and his co-actor drove approximately two miles
south to another convenience store, (the Kent Kwik). Appellant entered the store,
pointed the handgun at the second victim, and ordered her to give him the money
from the register and a pack of cigarillos. The second victim, like the first, testified
that Appellant’s actions placed her in fear for her life. Upon determining that the
two robberies were related, police began searching for the Expedition, and ultimately
conducted a traffic stop of the suspect vehicle approximately four and one-half miles
north of the Kent Kwik. Appellant matched the description of the perpetrator
provided by witnesses, and inside the Expedition police found a handgun, gloves, a
mask, cigarettes, cigarillos, and cash in the amount that was stolen from the

2
convenience stores. The State also introduced photographs, dashcam and bodycam
footage, and surveillance footage from both stores.
At the close of evidence, the jury found Appellant guilty of both counts of
aggravated robbery, then proceeded with the punishment phase of trial. The State
presented evidence of Appellant’s criminal history, and that he was a West Texas
gang member. Moreover, while Appellant was confined in the Ector County Jail
awaiting trial for the instant offenses, he assaulted another inmate and threatened
and pushed a jailer.
Appellant presented the testimony of his brother and grandmother, then
testified on his own behalf. Although Appellant expressed some remorse, he
claimed that it was his co-actor’s idea to commit the aggravated robberies, and he
“just wanted to . . . fit in.” In accordance with the jury’s punishment verdict, the
trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty-five years for each
conviction, to be served concurrently. See PENAL § 3.03 (West Supp. 2024), § 12.42.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law, and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 406–09. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy
of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and
the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the
record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has
complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

3
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and likewise conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

May 22, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of
1

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

4