Eric Balderas v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued August 1, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00818-CR
———————————
ERIC GUADALUPE BALDERAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 20-06-17328 (Counts I, II, and III)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After appellant, Eric Guadalupe Balderas, without an agreed punishment
recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to three “counts” of the felony
offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child,1 the jury found appellant guilty of
each “count” and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty-five years for
the first and second “counts” and at confinement for thirty-seven years and six
months for the third “count,” with his sentences to run concurrently.2 Appellant
timely filed a notice of appeal.
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 is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and
legal authority. See id. at 744; 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 grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Counsel has informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the
brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel has also informed appellant of his right
to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief, and he
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a), (e).
2
The jury also assessed a fine of $10,000 for each “count.”
2
provided him with a form motion to access the appellate record.3 See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel’s
Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in the appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing
reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of
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 appellant
may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for an 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.
3
This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a
motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the
appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court
provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
3
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed
counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 Attorney Travis Fleetwod must immediately send
appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
Julie Countiss
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4
Appellant’s appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of
this appeal and that appellant 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).
4