NO. 07-09-0239-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 24, 2010

__________________ ___________ SAMMY JUAREZ, JR. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

__________________ _____________ FROM THE 421 ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY; NO. 2008-112; HONORABLE MARK LUITJEN, JUDGE

__________________ ______________ Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Sammy Juarez, Jr. appeals from his conviction of the offense of aggravated sexual assault and the resulting sentenc e of twenty-seven years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Departm ent of Criminal Justice. Appellant's attorney has file d a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 4032 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Agr eeing with appointed counsel = s conclusion the record fails to show any arguably meritorious issue that c ould support the appeal, we affirm the trial
court = s judgment.
In May 2008, appellant was indicted for the offense of aggravated sexual assault. The indictment charged that on or about November 15, 2003, appellant A intentionally or knowingly cause[d] the penetra tion of the female sexual organ of [victim], a child younger than 14 years of age who was not the spouse of said defendant by the defendant = s male sexual organ. 1 On appellant = s not guilty plea, the case was tried to a jury in April 2009.
At trial, the State present ed the testimony of a forensic interviewer. The interviewer testified she talked to the vi ctim on October 25, 2007, the day after the victim told a school t eacher she had been sexually abused by her mother = s current boyfriend. During that interview, the vi ctim made an outcry agains t appellant, stating he had put his penis inside her several years befor e, when she was in t he fourth grade.
The victim, 14 years old at the time of trial, testif ied appellant penetrated her vagina with his penis, in her home in Lockhart, just after she turned nine years old. She said she did not tell anyone about the a ssault because she was sca red appellant would come back. She finally told her mother and the forensic interviewer years later when

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon 2003). This is a first degree felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 2003).3 she felt it was safe. The victim’s mother testified she dated appel lant for two or three months, their relationship ending in February 2004.
The victim‘s uncle, who kept her at that time while her mother worked, testified to an occasion when appellant appeared at the child = s home and told the uncle the victim’s mother said the uncle could go home. The vict im’s counselor testifie d, noting it is not uncommon for victims of child abuse to refr ain from telling other s about the assault and stated the victim had difficulty trusting adults and did not vi ew her mother as someone who would keep her safe.
Appellant cross-examined the victim, attemp ting to show the physical difficulty of her version of the sexual as sault and emphasizing her asse rtions he held her down with one hand while simultaneously removing her pant s and performing the sexual assault. Appellant also presented the test imony of his grandmother. She testified that in the fall of 2003, appellant lived with her in Luling and was there ever y day he was not working.
During the punishment stage, the St ate presented evidence of appellant = s prior criminal history. Appellant presented two witnesses, both of whom testified he posed no danger to the community.
The jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment, and assessed the sentence we have noted. Appellant timely filed notice of appeal.Thereafter, appellant's appoin ted appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant to Anders in which he certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his professional opinion, under the controlling authorities and facts of this case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds on which a nonfrivolous appeal arguably can be predicated. The brief discu sses the procedural history of the case and appellant = s jury trial. Counsel discu sses the applicable law and sets forth the reasons he concludes the record presents no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Counsel has certified that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been served on appellant, and that counsel has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. Johnson v. State , 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.--Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter , this Court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has filed a response raising two issues.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record. Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.--San Antoni o 1997, no pet.). If this Court determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed several potential areas for appeal. They involved (1) the trial court’s denial of appellant’s challenge for cause against a pr ospective juror; (2) the trial court = s admission of the forensic interviewer = s testimony as the designated outcry witness5 pursuant to article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Proc edure; (3) the trial court = s denial of appellant = s request to introduce details about a prior abuse complaint made by the victim; (4) the trial court’ s sustaining of the State = s objection during appellant = s closing argument regarding lack of medical evidence to prove sexual assault; (5) the trial court’s overruling of appellant = s objection during the State = s closing argument at punishment suggesting appellant = s likelihood to re-offend; and (6) the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant = s conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant also raised two issues in his response. Th e first was a complaint he did not receive a fair trial because the jury was biased. The second was a complaint about the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
Our review convinces us that appellate counsel conducted a complete review of the record. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. We agree it presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw 2 and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

James T. Campbell Justice

Do not publish.

2 Counsel shall, within five days afte r the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opin ion and judgment, al ong with notificatio n of the defendant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.