Opinion
No. 07-17-00041-CR
10-26-2017
ALBERTO FLORENTINO, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 251st District Court Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 25,860-C, Honorable Richard Dambold, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
Alberto Florentino, appellant, appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. After a Randall County jury found him guilty of said offense, the trial court imposed a felony-enhanced punishment of twenty years' imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed and was appointed counsel.
Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in the cause. Through those documents, he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter sent by counsel to appellant providing the latter a paper copy of the appellate record and informing him of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response, pro se. By letter dated September 20, 2017, this Court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by October 20, 2017. After requesting an extension of time to file his response, appellant filed his response in which he complains of various aspects of his trial counsel and the outcome of the trial in general but does not identify any arguable issues susceptible to review via appeal on the record before us. We do not address whether his assertions are susceptible to consideration via an original habeas corpus proceeding.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which areas included (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict, (2) the severity of the twenty-year sentence imposed, and (3) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, counsel then explained why those issues lacked merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice Do not publish.