Court Opinion

ID: 9411599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 08:11:44.900696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:31.179418
License: Public Domain

In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                         Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                           No. 07-22-00193-CR

                           JEFFREY CRAIG VUILLEMIN, APPELLANT

                                                     V.

                                THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                             On Appeal from the 428th District Court
                                      Hays County, Texas
              Trial Court No. CR-19-0180-D, Honorable William R. Henry, Presiding

                                              July 26, 2023
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        After Appellant, Jeffrey Craig Vuillemin, was convicted by a jury of continuous

sexual abuse of three children, M.G., L.P., and K.G., children under fourteen years of

age,1 by penetrating their sexual organs with his finger during a period of more than 30

        1 To protect the privacy of the victims, we identify them by their 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”).
days in duration, and sentenced to thirty-years’ confinement,2 he brought this appeal.3

His counsel filed an Anders brief4 in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s

motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

conducting a conscientious examination of the record, 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). By letter dated February 17,

2023, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with his motion to withdraw, a copy of his

Anders brief, a copy of the appellate record and informed Appellant of his right to file a

pro se response. 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. On March 31, 2022, Appellant filed his pro se

response.

        We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and Appellant’s pro se

response. We have 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

        2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a), (b), (c)(4), (h) (a first-degree felony).

       3 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

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

                                                     2
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