eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2021-06

Juan Manuel Arevalos v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 30, 2021
S  In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00466-CR
JUAN MANUEL AREVALOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1900219-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Goldstein, and Justice Garcia
Opinion by Justice Garcia
Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen
years of age and the trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years in prison.
On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California,
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the
record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High
v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining
whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief
to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did
not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319–21 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed
by counsel).
As required, appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has
provided appellant with a copy of the motion. See In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    ,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for
consideration with the merits.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before us that arguably
might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005); see also Meza v. State,
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
/Dennise Garcia/
DENNISE GARCIA
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
191466F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JUAN MANUEL AREVALOS,                        On Appeal from the 194th Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F19-00219-M.
No. 05-19-00466-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
Chief Justice Burns and Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Goldstein participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 30, 2021
–3–