Court Opinion

ID: 9910648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 11:10:59.1336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:39.708254
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00106-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

 EDWARD ANTHONY NEVEU, JR.,                      §      APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                        §      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Edward Anthony Neveu, Jr. appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child.
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 the trial court’s judgment.

                                         BACKGROUND

       Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Pursuant
to an open plea, Appellant pleaded “guilty” and signed written plea admonishments, waivers, and
a judicial confession of guilt. The matter proceeded to the trial court for sentencing. After a
punishment hearing, during which no evidence was adduced, the trial court sentenced Appellant
to twenty years of confinement. This appeal followed.

                       ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

       Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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 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 counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
         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 file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days
from the date of either this opinion, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely
motion for rehearing is 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered December 14, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired
and no pro se brief was filed.

                                                          2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        DECEMBER 14, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00106-CR

                               EDWARD ANTHONY NEVEU, JR.,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                Appeal from the 217th District Court
                        of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2021-0300)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.