From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leal v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Jul 11, 2024
No. 07-23-00403-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)

Opinion

07-23-00403-CR

07-11-2024

SCOTT IAN LEAL, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


Do not publish.

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court Comal County, Texas Trial Court No. CR2022-108, Judge Dwight E. Peschel, Presiding

The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Third Court of Appeals. Thus, we are bound by the latter's precedent should it conflict with ours. Tex.R.App.P. 41.3.

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Yarbrough Justice

Appellant Scott Ian Leal appeals the trial court's judgment by which he was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Appellant timely appealed. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certified that he conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis for reversing appellant's convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel also explained why, under the controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated March 20, 2024, this Court granted appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's motion and brief by April 19, 2024. To date, appellant has not filed a response or otherwise communicated a desire to do so.

We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any non-frivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. We found none. So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we 1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of appellant's conviction, 2) affirm the trial court's judgment, and 3) grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and ministerial. it does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.


Summaries of

Leal v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Jul 11, 2024
No. 07-23-00403-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)
Case details for

Leal v. State

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT IAN LEAL, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo

Date published: Jul 11, 2024

Citations

No. 07-23-00403-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 11, 2024)