Opinion
11-22-00265-CR
11-16-2023
JOEL JOHN VALDEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-20-0726-CR
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN M. BAILEY CHIEF JUSTICE
The jury convicted Appellant, Joel John Valdez, of two counts of the second-degree felony offense of sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (f) (West Supp. 2023). The jury found that Appellant had a prior felony conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count. See id. § 12.42(b) (West 2019). At the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the State called multiple witnesses: the victim, L.R.; Appellant's ex-wife; L.R.'s mother; L.R.'s cousin; two law enforcement witnesses; Appellant's probation officer for his previous conviction for sexual assault of a child; A.B., who was the victim of the prior offense; and an expert regarding sexual assault victims and offenders. L.R. testified that she was fifteen years old when she and Appellant had sex. Appellant told L.R. that he was eighteen years old, but she later found out that he was twenty-four years old. During their relationship, L.R. had sex with Appellant "[m]ostly every day," including the dates alleged in the indictment. He forced L.R. to have sex sometimes when she did not want to. Photographs, video clips, and social media conversations between Appellant and L.R. were admitted at trial. L.R.'s mother testified that she found Appellant hiding in L.R.'s closet, and Appellant's ex-wife testified that she drove Appellant to L.R.'s house, and he told his ex-wife that he had to hide in the closet from L.R.'s parents. The judgment reflecting Appellant's prior conviction for sexual assault of a child was admitted, and the victim of that offense testified.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.
We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.