Roberto Perez-Garcia v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00126-CR

ROBERTO PEREZ-GARCIA, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 483rd District Court
Hays County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR-22-5908-D, Honorable Tanner Neidhardt, Presiding

January 23, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Roberto Perez-Garcia, was convicted of the offense of aggravated

robbery 1 and was sentenced to twenty-five years of confinement in the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. 2 Appellant’s court-appointed attorney on

appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.03(3), (3)(b) (a first-degree felony).

2 This appeal was originally filed in the Third Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court by

a docket equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). See Tucker v. State, No. 03-22-00698-CR, 2024

Tex. App. LEXIS 3193, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 9, 2024, no pet.).

At trial, the State’s evidence consisted primarily of the complainant’s testimony,

physical evidence recovered from Appellant’s residence, and a recorded jail call.

According to the evidence, on November 18, 2022, the manager of a San Marcos trailer

park was in her office when Appellant came to discuss repairs to his unit’s air conditioning

system. When the manager explained she could not immediately fix his unit or allow him

to hire his own technician, Appellant became angry and refused to leave. While the

manager attempted to call police, Appellant grabbed her phone, pushed her against the

wall, and pulled out a handgun. Holding the gun to her head, Appellant demanded the

manager write him a receipt showing he had paid $18,000 to purchase his trailer unit.

After obtaining the receipt, Appellant then fled with the manager’s phone and keys. Police

later found the keys hidden in an air vent at Appellant’s residence. During a recorded jail

call, Appellant admitted giving the “Taurus” (identified by a detective as a handgun) to a

friend before police arrived. Appellant took the stand and denied having a weapon or

assaulting the complainant, though he acknowledged receiving the $18,000 receipt and

being upset about the repairs. The jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated robbery.

The brief from Appellant’s court-appointed attorney meets the requirements of

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45;

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 81-82, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988) (explaining that Anders

2
briefs serve the purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact

conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”).

Appellant’s counsel filed a certificate of counsel verifying that he (1) notified

Appellant that he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with an accompanying Anders

brief and provided a copy of each to Appellant; (2) advised him of his right to file a pro se

response identifying what he believes to be meritorious grounds for appeal; (3) advised

him of his right to review the appellate record; (4) explained the process for obtaining the

appellate record, provided a Motion for Pro Se Access to the appellate record lacking only

Appellant’s signature and date and provided the appropriate mailing address; and (5)

informed him of his right to seek discretionary review pro se should this Court declare his

appeal frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response, and the deadline for such a response has

passed. The State has declined to file a brief in this case.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766.

We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 3

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not
involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

3
Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Lawrence M. Doss
Justice

Do not publish.

4