Samson Merlin Garza v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-24-00533-CR, 13-24-00534-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SAMSON MERLIN GARZA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

In appellate cause number 13-24-00533-CR, appellant Samson Merlin Garza

pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 29.02. In appellate cause number 13-24-00534-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to the

third-degree felony offense of evading arrest with a vehicle. See id. § 38.04(b)(2(A). The

trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years in

both causes. The State filed motions to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms
of community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the State’s allegations that he

violated the terms of community supervision by committing two offenses against the laws

of Texas and failed to report to the community supervision department on numerous dates

in 2022, 2023, and 2024. The trial court found the State’s allegations to be “true,” revoked

appellant’s community supervision in both causes, and adjudicated appellant guilty of

robbery and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The trial court sentenced appellant

to ten years’ imprisonment for the robbery conviction and two years’ confinement for the

evading arrest conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief in both causes

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed briefs and motions to withdraw with this Court in both causes, stating that his review

of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be

predicated in either cause. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as each presents a

thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for

advancing an appeal in either cause. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically

advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record

references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that he has:

(1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw in both

causes; (2) provided appellant with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of

his rights to file a pro se response,1 to review the record prior to filing that response, and

to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeals are frivolous; and (4) provided

appellant with form motions for pro se access to the appellate records in both causes that

only require appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motions within ten

days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Appellant has not filed

a motion for access to the appellate record or a pro se response in either cause.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs in both causes,

and we have found no arguable reversible error in either cause. Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by

indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the

record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

1 An appellant’s pro se response following the filing of an Anders brief “need not comply with the

rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered[; r]ather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed

a motion to withdraw in each cause. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must

withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed

attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate

court that the appeal is frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motions to withdraw

in both causes.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgments to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review in each cause, within five days of the date of this memorandum

opinion.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex

parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
31st day of July, 2025.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file
a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this
Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

4