Opinion issued July 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-14-00566-CR ____________

DIEGO SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 175th District Court

Bexar County, Texas1

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-CR-7790

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 1 On July 1, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court ordered this appeal transferred from the 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 

§ 73.001 (Vernon 2013) (authorizing transfer of cases). We are unaware of any 

conflict between the precedent of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District and 

that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2

A jury found appellant, Diego Sanchez, guilty of the offense of continuous 

sexual assault of a child2 and assessed his punishment at confinement for 38 years. 

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 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 and legal 

authority. 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 is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants 

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.) 

Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending that (1) the evidence is 

factually insufficient and (2) the State failed to bring forth DNA evidence. We have 

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 

 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 (Vernon Supp. 2014). 
3

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.

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

withdraw.3 Attorney, Anthony Martin Smith, must immediately send the required 

notice to appellant and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish.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

 3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

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).