Opinion
04-22-00493-CR
04-26-2023
Daniel Antonio CHAVEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-1111-CR-C Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LIZA A. RODRIGUEZ, JUSTICE
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Daniel Antonio Chavez pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child (Count I), a first-degree felony, and two counts of sexual assault of a child (Counts II and III), both second-degree felonies. The trial court sentenced Chavez to twenty-five years' imprisonment on Count I, fifteen years' imprisonment on Count II, and twenty years' imprisonment on Count III. Chavez appealed.
The trial court's certification states this is a plea-bargain case, but Chavez has the right of appeal because the trial court gave him permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Chavez's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel's brief explains why no arguable appellate issues exist and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id. at 744-45. As required, counsel provided Chavez with copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also informed Chavez of his right to file his own pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Chavez filed a motion for pro se access to the appellate record, which was granted. The clerk of this court sent Chavez a copy of the appellate record, but he did not file a pro se brief.
After conducting an independent review of the appellate record, we conclude there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel's conclusion that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the trial court's judgments are affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Chavez 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. 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.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED