Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Lawrence Vasquez v. The State of Texas
Date: 03-31-2019
Case Number: 10-18-00282-CR
Judge: TOM GRAY
Court: TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Lawrence Vasquez
Defendant's Attorney: Barry N. Johnson
Description:
Lawrence Gregory Vasquez pled guilty without a plea bargain to the offenses of
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Cocaine, with the intent to deliver, in an amount
of four grams or more but less than 200 grams in a drug free zone and Possession of a
Controlled Substance, Methamphetamine, with the intent to deliver, in an amount of four
grams or more but less than 200 grams in a drug free zone. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. §§ 481.112; 481.134 (West 2017). After a presentence investigation, the trial
court sentenced Vasquez to 20 years in prison for each offense with the sentences to run
Vasquez v. State Page 2
concurrently.
Vasquez’s appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal presents no issues of
arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Counsel advised Vasquez that counsel had filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders,
advised Vasquez of his right to review the record, and advised Vasquez of his right to
submit a response on his own behalf. Vasquez did not submit a response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel has made a thorough review of the
entire record, including the guilty plea, waiver of jury trial, and stipulation of evidence;
the sufficiency of the evidence; the sentencing; trial counsel’s failure to prepare for
sentencing; and the reasonableness of the sentence. After the review, counsel concludes
there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a
professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed
the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
Vasquez v. State Page 3
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have
determined that this appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Judgment of Conviction by
Court—Waiver of Jury Trial (Count I) signed on May 14, 2018 and the trial court’s
Judgment of Conviction by Court—Waiver of Jury Trial (Count II) signed on May 14,
2018.
Should Vasquez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en
banc reconsideration has been overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended
eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Morelaw Internet Marketing
National Find A Lawyer Directory
Lawrence Gregory Vasquez pled guilty without a plea bargain to the offenses of
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Cocaine, with the intent to deliver, in an amount
of four grams or more but less than 200 grams in a drug free zone and Possession of a
Controlled Substance, Methamphetamine, with the intent to deliver, in an amount of four
grams or more but less than 200 grams in a drug free zone. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. §§ 481.112; 481.134 (West 2017). After a presentence investigation, the trial
court sentenced Vasquez to 20 years in prison for each offense with the sentences to run
Vasquez v. State Page 2
concurrently.
Vasquez’s appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal presents no issues of
arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Counsel advised Vasquez that counsel had filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders,
advised Vasquez of his right to review the record, and advised Vasquez of his right to
submit a response on his own behalf. Vasquez did not submit a response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel has made a thorough review of the
entire record, including the guilty plea, waiver of jury trial, and stipulation of evidence;
the sufficiency of the evidence; the sentencing; trial counsel’s failure to prepare for
sentencing; and the reasonableness of the sentence. After the review, counsel concludes
there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a
professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed
the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
Vasquez v. State Page 3
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have
determined that this appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Judgment of Conviction by
Court—Waiver of Jury Trial (Count I) signed on May 14, 2018 and the trial court’s
Judgment of Conviction by Court—Waiver of Jury Trial (Count II) signed on May 14,
2018.
Should Vasquez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en
banc reconsideration has been overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended
eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Outcome:
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Vasquez is granted, and
counsel is discharged from representing Vasquez. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge,
counsel must send Vasquez a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's
compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
counsel is discharged from representing Vasquez. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge,
counsel must send Vasquez a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's
compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Lawrence Vasquez v. The State of Texas?
The outcome was: Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Vasquez is granted, and counsel is discharged from representing Vasquez. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge, counsel must send Vasquez a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Which court heard Lawrence Vasquez v. The State of Texas?
This case was heard in TENTH COURT OF APPEALS, TX. The presiding judge was TOM GRAY.
Who were the attorneys in Lawrence Vasquez v. The State of Texas?
Plaintiff's attorney: Lawrence Vasquez. Defendant's attorney: Barry N. Johnson.
When was Lawrence Vasquez v. The State of Texas decided?
This case was decided on March 31, 2019.