Court Opinion

ID: 2896733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-08 00:47:45.705823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:04.816569
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-07-0412-CR

                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                        AT AMARILLO

                                          PANEL A

                                  SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
                            ______________________________

                             JOSE MARIA LOPEZ, APPELLANT

                                              V.

                            THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
                          _________________________________

           FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

                   NO. 98968; HONORABLE JOHN B. STEVENS, JUDGE
                          _______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Appellant, Jose Maria Lopez, appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated

sexual assault of a child and punishment assessed by the same jury of 99 years

confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We

affirm.

          Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion

to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion,
the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-

45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel

has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial

court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy

of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response in this matter.         Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se

response. Appellant has not filed a response.

       By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,

but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an

independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346,

102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We

have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

       Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.1

                                                   Mackey K. Hancock
                                                        Justice

Do not publish.

       1
         Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro
se petition for discretionary review. See TEX . R. APP. P. 48.4.

                                              2