Francisco Rosalez v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-14-00149-CR
_________________
FRANCISCO ROSALEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-16304
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Francisco Rosalez pleaded
guilty to the offense of injury to a child, a third degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.04(a)(3), (f) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court found the evidence
sufficient to find Rosalez guilty of injury to a child, but deferred further
proceedings, placed Rosalez on community supervision for a period of eight years,
and ordered Rosalez to pay a $1,000 fine. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to
revoke Rosalez’s unadjudicated probation. The trial court held a hearing on the
1
State’s motion to revoke, during which Rosalez pled “true” to two violations of the
conditions of his community supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court found the evidence sufficient to establish that Rosalez violated the conditions
of his community supervision. Based on this finding, the trial court revoked
Rosalez’s community supervision, found him guilty of the offense of injury to a
child, and sentenced him to five years in prison. Rosalez timely filed this appeal.
Rosalez’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and
concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel
provided Rosalez with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for
Rosalez to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Rosalez.
The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders
briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed
the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable
grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel
may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted).
2
We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s
record, and we agree with Rosalez’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues were
properly preserved to support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary
to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Rosalez’s appeal. See id.; cf.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
_____________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on August 29, 2014
Opinion Delivered November 18, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
1
Rosalez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3