Raymond Sambow Vargas v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-18-00129-CR
RAYMOND SAMBOW VARGAS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 29th District Court
Palo Pinto County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 16044, Honorable Mike Moore, Presiding
June 3, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
On February 6 through 8, 2018, appellant, Raymond Sambow Vargas, was tried
for the offense of continuous assault causing bodily injury to a family member.2 Appellant
pled not guilty and the case proceeded to a jury trial. After hearing evidence, the jury
found appellant guilty. Appellant elected to have the trial court assess punishment.
1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to
this Court from the Eleventh Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11 (West 2019).
Appellant pled true to an allegation of a prior final felony conviction used to enhance the
applicable range of punishment and, after hearing punishment evidence, the trial court
sentenced appellant to twenty years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, and a $10,000 fine. Appellant timely filed his notice of
appeal. We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the
representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel
certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects
no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under
the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the
motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se
response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant filed a pro se response. In it, appellant
indicates that certain evidence was not admitted by trial counsel, counsel physically
assaulted appellant during trial, and counsel refused to let appellant testify in his own
2
defense at trial. However, none of these complaints are reflected in the record. 3 The
State did not file a brief.
In the present case, a jury found appellant guilty of continuous assault causing
bodily injury to a family member, and the trial court sentenced him to an enhanced
punishment of twenty years’ incarceration and a $10,000 fine. By his Anders brief,
counsel thoroughly discusses where in the record reversible error may have occurred but
concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to
determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court
which might support this appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969).
After carefully reviewing the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro
se response, we conclude that there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Appellant raises additional complaints that illustrate appellant’s lack of understanding of the
process by which a criminal trial is conducted. Like the issues identified above, however, the record does
not reflect the possibility of reversible error relating to these additional issues raised by appellant in his pro
se response.
3