Miguel Cervantes v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 18, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00288-CR
__________

MIGUEL CERVANTES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Erath County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22CRCC-00158

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Miguel Cervantes, entered an open plea of nolo contendere to the
offense of deadly conduct by recklessly engaging in conduct that places another in
imminent danger of serious bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 22.05(a), (e) (West 2019). The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea
and the parties presented punishment evidence. The trial court heard testimony from
six witnesses, including the victim of the offense, Appellant, and Appellant’s family
members. The State also introduced judgments of Appellant’s prior convictions—
two felonies and four misdemeanors. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court found Appellant guilty of the charged offense and assessed his punishment at
confinement for one year in the Erath County Jail.
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. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
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 v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
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 we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1

1
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

July 18, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3