TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00077-CR

Everardo Sanchez-Beiza, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. CR-19-3980-C, THE HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Everardo Sanchez-Beiza was convicted by a jury of one count of 

continuous sexual abuse of a child, one count of indecency with a child by sexual contact, and 

three counts of sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.02(b), .11(d), 22.011(a)(2). 

The trial court sentenced appellant to 45 years’ confinement for continuous sexual abuse and 

20 years’ confinement for each of the remaining offenses and ordered that the sentences 

run concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); 

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 
2

488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of 

the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record 

and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See 

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744.

On June 3, 2024, appellant filed a motion for extension of time, purportedly 

written by his cellmate, in which appellant stated that he “speaks limited [E]nglish and reads and 

writes none.” Appellant also stated that he had not understood the record and letter from counsel 

because they were in English.

Accordingly, on July 3, 2024, we abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to 

conduct a transcribed hearing and inform appellant, through an interpreter if necessary, that 

appellate counsel had filed an Anders brief and that appellant had until 60 days after the hearing 

to file a pro se response. We instructed the court to “take any action that it deem[ed] necessary, 

including the appointment of a translator or interpreter, to guarantee that appellant ha[d] meaningful 

access to the appellate record and an adequate opportunity to prepare a pro se response if he 

so desire[d].”

The trial court held the hearing on July 18, 2024. Appellant asserted that he did 

not speak, read, or write English but desired to file a pro se response. Appellate counsel 

confirmed that he was fluent in Spanish and informed the trial court that he had sent appellant a 

letter in Spanish explaining the Anders brief’s contents. The trial court ordered appellate counsel 

to serve as appellant’s translator and to assist him in filing a pro se response. Appellant’s 

response was due by September 16, 2024, but to date, no response has been filed.
3

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of 

the trial and sentencing proceedings below and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible 

error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably 

meritorious grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgments of 

conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: September 26. 2024

Do Not Publish