Court Opinion

ID: 9440262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 08:08:19.478884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:17.884071
License: Public Domain

In The
                                    Court of Appeals
                           Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                            No. 07-22-00297-CR

                                MIGUEL BARRON, SR., APPELLANT

                                                      V.

                                 THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                                  On Appeal from the 235th Court
                                       Cooke County, Texas
               Trial Court No. CR21-00138, Honorable Janelle M. Haverkamp, Presiding

                                               July 27, 2023
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                        Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Appellant, Miguel Barron, Sr., was convicted by a jury of one count of continuous

sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to confinement for life.1 In his appeal,2 his

        1
            See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b), (h) (first-degree felony).

        2
         This appeal was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court
by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
counsel filed an Anders brief3 in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s

motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

        The record reflects that between January 2010 and December 2015, Appellant

continually sexually abused D.M.,4 when she was under the age of fourteen. During that

time, D.M. regularly visited her grandmother’s house where Appellant was residing as her

grandmother’s boyfriend. During her visits, Appellant would arrange to be alone with her

and cause her to masturbate him. He also touched D.M.’s genitals beneath her clothes.

        Appellant’s counsel has certified that after diligently searching the record, he has

conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record

reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant’s counsel

informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response and provided Appellant with copies

of his motion to withdraw, his Anders brief, and the appellate record. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the

filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also

advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant

filed a response, where he largely complains about witness credibility questions and

evidentiary matters that were not preserved for review.

        3
            See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967).

        4
          To protect the privacy of the victim, we identify her by initials. See TEX. CONST. art. 1 § 30(a)(1)
(granting victims of crime “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and
privacy throughout the criminal justice process”).

                                                      2
        We have carefully examined counsel’s Anders brief and Appellant’s response. We

also conducted an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any

nonfrivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal.

Like counsel, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. See

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the

trial court.5

                                                                   Lawrence M. Doss
                                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

        5
          Counsel shall within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant 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. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to
withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

                                                      3