Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 16, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01222-CR
ANGEL ESPINO PALOMO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12-63321-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Angel Espino Palomo pleaded guilty before a jury to murder while committing a felony
with a deadly weapon and true to one enhancement paragraph. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 19.02(b)(3) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect,
there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised
appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and
counsel in Anders cases).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
131222F.U05
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
‐2‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ANGEL ESPINO PALOMO, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-13-01222-CR V. F12-63321-H).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang-Miers and Myers
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 16, 2015.
‐3‐