Court Opinion

ID: 3108070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:18:09.774899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:49.002323
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-10-0367-CR
                                                         NO. 07-10-0368-CR
 
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
 
FOR THE
SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
AT
AMARILLO
 
PANEL B
 

JUNE
13, 2011
 

 
CARLOS ENRIQUE VIGIL,  
 
                                                                                         Appellant

v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,  
 
                                                                                         Appellee
_____________________________
 
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER
COUNTY;
 
NOS. 57173-C & 57174-C; HONORABLE
ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING
 

 
Memorandum
Opinion
 

 
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Carlos Enrique
Vigil (appellant)
appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and sexual
assault of a child, both offenses enhanced. 
Before us is appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1
brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he
concluded that the appeal was without merit. 
Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to
appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error
and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se.  By letter dated May 4, 2011, this court also
notified appellant of his right to tender his own response and set June 3,
2011, as the deadline to do so.  To date,
no response has been filed.   
            In
compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed two potential areas for appeal. 
They included 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, and 2) the cumulation of sentences. 
However, counsel then proceeded to explain why none of the issues
required reversal on appeal.
            In
addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  After doing so, we concur with those
conclusions.  
            Accordingly,
the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
 
                                                                                    Brian
Quinn
                                                                                    Chief
Justice
 
Do not
publish.  
 
 
 

1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).