Opinion issued July 17, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00650-CR

———————————

RICARDO ESTRADA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 67751

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ricardo Estrada, pleaded guilty to a jury to three counts of the 

felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment and, in accordance 

with the jury’s assessment, the trial court sentenced appellant as follows: (1) for 
2

count one, appellant was sentenced to10 years’ imprisonment with the sentence 

suspended and appellant placed on community supervision for a period of 10 

years; (2) for count two, appellant was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment; and (3) 

for count three, appellant was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 2013) (first-degree felony punishable by 

imprisonment for term of life or not less than 5 years); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

22.021(e) (“An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.”). The trial 

court further ordered that the sentences for counts two and three shall run 

consecutively, but the sentence for count one is to run concurrently with the 

sentences for counts two and three. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08 

(West Supp. 2011) (granting trial court authority to order sentences to run 

consecutively or concurrently); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 3.03(b)(2)(A) (West 

Supp. 2013) (authorizing consecutive sentences for aggravated sexual assault of

child offenses under section 22.021 even if offenses arise out of same criminal 

episode). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record 
3

and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error 

that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. 

State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

We independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude 

that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for 

review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing 

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We 

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds 

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
4

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Perry Stevens must immediately send appellant the required 

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).