Opinion issued September 11, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00081-CR
NO. 01-13-00082-CR
NO. 01-13-00083-CR
NO. 01-13-00084-CR
———————————
ADELINA MARGARITA BANUELOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. CR29761 and CR29763
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Adelina Margarita Banuelos, pleaded guilty to the felony offenses
of sexual assault of a child, indecency with a child by contact, second-degree
sexual performance by a child, and third-degree sexual performance by a child,
without an agreed recommendation from the state regarding punishment.1 The trial
court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years’ confinement
for sexual assault, indecency with a child, and second-degree sexual performance
by a child and at ten years’ confinement for third-degree degree sexual
performance by a child, with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court
certified that this is not a plea-bargain case and that appellant has the right to
appeal. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible
error and therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812−13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that
warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,
193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 21.11(a)(1), 22.011(a)(2)(A), 43.25(b), (c), (d), (e)
(West 2011).
2
also informed us that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed her
of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.2 See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a
pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.
Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court―not counsel―determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826−27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (same).
Appellant may challenge our holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal
by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.3 Attorney Stephen Christopher Taylor must immediately send the
2
Counsel also has informed us that he has provided appellant a copy of the clerk’s
records and the reporter’s record in these appeals.
3
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3
notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that
notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss all
other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4