Court Opinion

ID: 9900016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 07:12:08.823615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.444386
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 16, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-22-00265-CR
                                   __________

                     JOEL JOHN VALDEZ, Appellant

                                        V.

                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 161st District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. C-20-0726-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Appellant, Joel John Valdez, of two counts of the second-
degree felony offense of sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.011(a)(2)(A), (f) (West Supp. 2023). The jury found that Appellant had a prior
felony conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count. See id.
§ 12.42(b) (West 2019). At the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the State called
multiple witnesses: the victim, L.R.; Appellant’s ex-wife; L.R.’s mother; L.R.’s
cousin; two law enforcement witnesses; Appellant’s probation officer for his
previous conviction for sexual assault of a child; A.B., who was the victim of the
prior offense; and an expert regarding sexual assault victims and offenders. L.R.
testified that she was fifteen years old when she and Appellant had sex. Appellant
told L.R. that he was eighteen years old, but she later found out that he was twenty-
four years old. During their relationship, L.R. had sex with Appellant “[m]ostly
every day,” including the dates alleged in the indictment. He forced L.R. to have
sex sometimes when she did not want to. Photographs, video clips, and social media
conversations between Appellant and L.R. were admitted at trial. L.R.’s mother
testified that she found Appellant hiding in L.R.’s closet, and Appellant’s ex-wife
testified that she drove Appellant to L.R.’s house, and he told his ex-wife that he had
to hide in the closet from L.R.’s parents. The judgment reflecting Appellant’s prior
conviction for sexual assault of a child was admitted, and the victim of that offense
testified.
       Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief.                  Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.

                                          2
Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
        Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                          JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE

November 16, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                     3