Flores v. State

Full title: RODOLFO FLORES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston

Date published: Jul 22, 2010

No. 01-09-00849-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 22, 2010)

Opinion

No. 01-09-00849-CR

Opinion issued July 22, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 174th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Case No. 1134857.

Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK and Justices BLAND and SHARP.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant, Rodolfo Flores, guilty of the offense aggravated sexual assault of a child, ¹ and assessed punishment at nine years' confinement. Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed appellate counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could "conceivably persuade the court." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In our review, we consider appellant's pro se response, if any, to his counsel's Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending the he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Having reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1) (B) (iii) (Vernon Supp. 2009).

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.² See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).