Court Opinion

ID: 9396045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 07:10:37.266036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:13.683117
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               ________________
                               NO. 09-22-00275-CR
                               ________________

                     RAUL FIGUEROA-ROSAS, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                     On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 21-08-10629-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Raul Figueroa-Rosas appeals his conviction for indecency with a child, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). After filing the

notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Figueroa-Rosas in

his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Figueroa-Rosas by filing

an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief,

Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be

                                          1
addressed in Figueroa-Rosas’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of

the record. In the brief, Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney explains why, under the record in

Figueroa-Rosas’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney also represented that he sent

Figueroa-Rosas a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the

Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Figueroa-Rosas, by letter, that he could

file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before February 10, 2023.

Figueroa-Rosas, however, failed to respond.

       When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently

examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the

defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no

arguable grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues

raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the

court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-

                                          2
brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Figueroa-Rosas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                       ________________________________
                                                JAY WRIGHT
                                                   Justice

Submitted on March 16, 2023
Opinion Delivered May 17, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

                                         3