Background
Beth Rene Regalado pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at more than $2,500 but less than $30,000, a state-jail felony, and burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years in state jail for theft and ten years’ imprisonment for burglary, suspended the sentences, and placed Regalado on community supervision for five years in both cases.
After the State moved to revoke community supervision, the trial court held a hearing and revoked Regalado’s supervision in both cases. It sentenced her to fifteen months in state jail for theft, to run concurrently with a two-year sentence for burglary of a habitation, with credit for time served. Her appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed Anders briefs asserting that the records presented no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Regalado did not seek access to the appellate records or file pro se responses.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently examined the records and counsel’s briefs, as required when appointed counsel files an Anders brief. It found no arguable reversible error and affirmed the trial court’s judgments revoking Regalado’s community supervision and imposing the concurrent sentences.
The court also concluded that counsel’s briefs adequately described the facts, procedural history, and controlling law and satisfied the requirements governing Anders proceedings. It granted appointed counsel’s motions to withdraw in both cases and ordered counsel to provide Regalado with the opinion and judgments and advise her of her right to seek discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently examine the entire proceeding to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The court found no arguable reversible error in either judgment revoking Regalado’s community supervision.
- The court affirmed both judgments, granted counsel’s motions to withdraw, and preserved Regalado’s ability to seek discretionary review on her own or through retained counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the review required before a Texas appellate court may dispose of a criminal appeal as frivolous under Anders. Counsel’s conclusion that no nonfrivolous issue exists does not end the inquiry; the appellate court must conduct its own review of the record for arguable reversible error.
It also underscores appointed counsel’s continuing duties after withdrawal, including promptly sending the appellant the opinion and judgment and advising the appellant about the right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review.