Diego Sanchez v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued July 7, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-14-00566-CR
____________
DIEGO SANCHEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 175th District Court
Bexar County, Texas 1
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-CR-7790
MEMORANDUM OPINION
1
On July 1, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court ordered this appeal transferred from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 73.001 (Vernon 2013) (authorizing transfer of cases). We are unaware of any
conflict between the precedent of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District and
that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
A jury found appellant, Diego Sanchez, guilty of the offense of continuous
sexual assault of a child2 and assessed his punishment at confinement for 38 years.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.)
Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending that (1) the evidence is
factually insufficient and (2) the State failed to bring forth DNA evidence. We have
independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and
the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing
that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 (Vernon Supp. 2014).
2
proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,
767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable
grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines
whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 3 Attorney, Anthony Martin Smith, must immediately send the required
notice to appellant and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3