Court Opinion

ID: 9908970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 11:07:51.520055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:38.371751
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00232-CR

                                  Armando Napoles, Appellant

                                                v.

                                   The State of Texas, Appellee

                FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
       NO. CR-19-0547-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Armando Napoles was charged with the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a

child. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02. The indictment included an enhancement allegation

alleging that Napoles had previously been convicted of the felony offense of sexual assault of a

child. See id. § 22.011. Following a trial, the jury found Napoles guilty. The trial court found

the enhancement allegation to be true and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment without

the possibility of parole. See id. § 12.42(c); Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.145(a). Napoles appealed

his conviction.

                  Napoles’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Napoles’s court-appointed attorney’s brief

concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit meets the requirements of Anders by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009);

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose

of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed

review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Napoles’s counsel represented to the

Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Napoles; advised Napoles of his right to

examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the

resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Napoles with a form motion for pro se access

to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court.           See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).             Napoles has not filed a pro se brief

challenging his conviction, and the deadline for filing a pro se brief has expired.

                 We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel’s

brief, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

of conviction.

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: December 8, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                                 2