IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00161-CR

JOSHUA DOMINGO LOREDO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-2310-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joshua Domingo Loredo was convicted of the felony offenses of aggravated sexual 

assault and assault-family violence by occlusion. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01; 

22.021 (West 2011). In separate judgments, Loredo was sentenced to 45 years and 10 

years, respectively, in prison. 

Loredo’s appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Loredo was informed of 
Loredo v. State Page 2

his right of access to the appellate record and his right to submit a brief or other response 

on his own behalf. He did not request access to the appellate record and did not submit 

a brief or response.

Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel reviewed the reporter's record and 

clerk's record, including the judgments and sentences for each offense, the factual bases 

for each sentence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the offense of aggravated 

sexual assault. Because Loredo pled guilty to the offense of assault-family violence, 

counsel also reviewed the trial court’s compliance with article 26.13 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure and Loredo’s mental competency to plead guilty. Counsel concludes 

that counsel is unable to find any non-frivolous error.

Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we 

conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. 

Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). 

Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436. 
Loredo v. State Page 3

An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 511.

After reviewing counsel's brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine 

the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Should Loredo wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary 

review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the 

last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was 

overruled by this Court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition 

for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition 

for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 409 n.22.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Loredo is granted, and 

counsel is permitted to withdraw from representing Loredo. Additionally, counsel must 

send Loredo a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with 
Loredo v. State Page 4

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed August 10, 2016

Do not publish 

[CRPM]