Rogelio Soto v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00245-CR

ROGELIO SOTO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Garza County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24-4324, Honorable Reed Filley, Presiding

December 5, 2025
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Rogelio Soto,

was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years for the offense

of assault family violence and assessed a $1,000 fine.2 Approximately five months later,

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

2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(B).
the State moved to adjudicate guilt alleging Appellant violated numerous conditions of his

community supervision including commission of new offenses, delinquencies in financial

obligations, and failure to complete any hours of community service. At a hearing on the

State’s motion, Appellant entered pleas of not true to all allegations. After presentation

of testimony, the trial court found the State established the alleged allegations and

sentenced Appellant to confinement for ten years for the original offense and also

pronounced a $10,000 fine.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a

professional evaluation of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially plausible

basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45,

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record

supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In re

Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief and record to Appellant, (2) notifying him of

the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of the right

to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.3 By

letter, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response

3 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply
with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to
send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.

2
to counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a

response. Neither did the State favor us with a response.

ANALYSIS

By this Anders appeal, counsel evaluates the proceedings and candidly concedes

there is no reversible error presented in the record. He concludes there are no

nonfrivolous grounds to support an appeal.

We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are

any non-frivolous issues which might support this appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found no such

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree there is no plausible basis for reversal

of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

The trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is affirmed and counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted.

Alex Yarbrough
Justice

Do not publish.

3