Court Opinion

ID: 3076499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:20:18.443987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:18.091103
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-11-00610-CR
                             NO. 09-11-00611-CR
                          ____________________

                   ACE ALLEN KRETZER JR., Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________          ______________

                     On Appeal from the 1st District Court
                            Newton County, Texas
                    Trial Cause Nos. ND-6577 and ND-6578
________________________________________________________          _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this appeal, which includes two separate cases that were consolidated for

trial, we conclude that no arguable issues support Ace Allen Kretzer Jr.’s appeal.

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

cause numbers ND-6577 and ND-6578, cases that involved the same victim, a jury

found Kretzer guilty of committing aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012) (defining the elements of aggravated sexual

                                        1
assault). 1 In each case, the jury assessed Kretzer’s punishment at five years in

prison; the trial court rendered separate judgments on each conviction, and in trial

court cause number ND-6578 ordered Kretzer’s sentence to begin “when the

judgment and sentence imposed in Cause# ND-6577 has ceased to operate

and       is   discharged.”    We      affirm    the     trial   court’s    judgments.

      On appeal, Kretzer’s counsel filed briefs presenting counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. In both cases, counsel concludes that Kretzer’s appeals

are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On February 28, 2013, we granted an extension of time to allow

Kretzer to file pro se briefs. Kretzer has not filed a response in either case.

      After reviewing the appellate record in each case, we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support either of his appeals. Therefore, we find

it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf.

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgments. 2

      1
      We cite to the current version of the statute, as the 2011 amendments that
were made to section 22.021 are not relevant to Kretzer’s appeals.
      2
        Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                           2
      AFFIRMED.

                                           ___________________________
                                                  HOLLIS HORTON
                                                       Justice

Submitted on June 12, 2013
Opinion Delivered June 26, 2013
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

                                       3