Armando Napoles v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00232-CR
Armando Napoles, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
NO. CR-19-0547-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Armando Napoles was charged with the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a
child. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02. The indictment included an enhancement allegation
alleging that Napoles had previously been convicted of the felony offense of sexual assault of a
child. See id. § 22.011. Following a trial, the jury found Napoles guilty. The trial court found
the enhancement allegation to be true and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole. See id. § 12.42(c); Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.145(a). Napoles appealed
his conviction.
Napoles’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Napoles’s court-appointed attorney’s brief
concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit meets the requirements of Anders by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);
see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose
of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed
review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Napoles’s counsel represented to the
Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Napoles; advised Napoles of his right to
examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the
resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Napoles with a form motion for pro se access
to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Napoles has not filed a pro se brief
challenging his conviction, and the deadline for filing a pro se brief has expired.
We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel’s
brief, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment
of conviction.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: December 8, 2023
Do Not Publish
2