Court Opinion

ID: 3200248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-04 13:19:53.735481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:25.896094
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-14-00324-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JOSE JULIO SANCHEZ,                              §      APPEAL FROM THE 2ND
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Jose Julio Sanchez appeals his conviction for sexual assault, for which he was sentenced
to imprisonment for fourteen years. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault and pleaded “not guilty.” The
matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged and
assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fourteen years. The trial court sentenced Appellant
accordingly, and this appeal followed.

                        ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of
the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an
appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case.
In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural
history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable
issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found
none.

                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this
opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered April 29, 2016.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           Counsel for Appellant sets forth in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief.
Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have
received no pro se brief.

                                                          2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                             APRIL 29, 2016

                                         NO. 12-14-00324-CR

                                      JOSE JULIO SANCHEZ,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                             Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 2nd District Court
                          of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 18,472)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.