Ilefonso S. Martinez v. State ( 2009 )

NO. 07-08-0400-CR
NO. 07-08-0401-CR
NO. 07-08-0402-CR
NO. 07-08-0403-CR
NO. 07-08-0404-CR
NO. 07-08-0405-CR
NO. 07-08-0406-CR
NO. 07-08-0407-CR
NO. 07-08-0408-CR
NO. 07-08-0409-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JANUARY 27, 2009
______________________________
ILDEFONSO SANTIAGO MARTINEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
______________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NOS. 56,136-C, 57,334-C, 57,335-C, 57,336-C, 57,337-C,
57,338-C, 57,339-C, 57,340-C, 57,341-C and 57,342-C;
HON. ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING
_______________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
After a jury trial, appellant Ildefonso Santiago Martinez was convicted of eight counts
of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child. Punishment was
assessed by the jury at life imprisonment for each count of aggravated sexual assault and
twenty years imprisonment for each count of indecency with a child with the sentences to
run consecutively.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed motions to withdraw, together with an
Anders’1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has
concluded that appellant’s appeals are without merit. Along with his brief, he has provided
a copy of a letter sent to appellant 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 December
12, 2008, this court also notified appellant of his right to file a response by January 12,
2009, if he wished to do so. To date, we have received neither a response nor a request
for extension of time to file one.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
various phases of the trial including pre-trial and voir dire, the guilt/innocence phase, the
charge conference and the court’s charge, final arguments on guilt/innocence, and the
punishment phase. In doing so, he analyzed why he perceived there to be no reversible
error during each phase. He also discussed whether the evidence was sufficient to support
the verdicts and whether the stacking of appellant’s sentences constituted cruel and
unusual punishment, but again he concluded there was no reversible error. Thereafter,
we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and concluded the same.
Accordingly, the motions to withdraw are granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3