Alejandro Londono Arteaga v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00372-CR
__________________
ALEJANDRO LONDONO ARTEAGA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-05-06335-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Alejandro Londono Arteaga for aggravated
sexual assault of a child younger than six years of age, a first-degree felony. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(2)(B). Arteaga pleaded “not guilty” to the offense, but
a jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed punishment at
confinement for life and a $10,000 fine.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has
reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
1
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted an extension of time for Arteaga to file a pro se brief, and we received no
response from Arteaga.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire
record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support
an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered
the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found
none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order the appointment of new
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
1
Arteaga may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
2
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on October 3, 2024
Opinion Delivered October 23, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
3