Court Opinion

ID: 3108073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:18:10.724346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:19.987663
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.