In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-13-00186-CR
________________________
ERIC URIAH CARRILLO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 181st District Court
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23,880-B; Honorable John B. Board, Presiding
August 19, 2014
ORDER OVERRULING MOTION FOR REHEARING
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
To paraphrase the State’s response to Appellant’s motion for rehearing, this
appeal has had a “tortured procedural history.” 1 Appellant now asks this Court to again
expend its limited resources to reconsider our opinion of April 10, 2014, which affirmed
1
See Carrillo v. State, No. 07-13-00185-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2324 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
Feb. 24, 2014, no pet. h.)(mem. op., not designated for publication), and Carrillo v. State, No. 07-13-
00185-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4006 (Tex. App.—Amarillo April 10, 2014, no pet. h.)(mem. op., not
designated for publication).
his conviction for the offense of robbery following the filing of an Anders brief.2
Appellant requests this Court to “reverse and dismiss” his conviction for robbery based
on the alleged failure to address his claims of (1) the State’s use of “false testimony,” (2)
ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (3) insufficiency of the evidence.
First and foremost, we remind Appellant and his counsel that the Court was
addressing an Anders brief that stated that there were no meritorious grounds for
reversal. As none were raised, this Court did not fail to address any issue raised by
Appellant. Furthermore, as we stated in our original opinion, we have independently
examined the entire record including, but not limited to, pretrial hearings, evidentiary
rulings, the court’s charges during guilt/innocence and punishment, the punishment and
sentencing phase and trial counsel’s representation to determine whether there were
any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Also, despite the fact that Appellant did not file a response to
the Anders brief, we considered his communications with the Court as a response—
thereby considering his claims of a meritorious issue. After independently considering
these sources, we found there were no arguable grounds for reversal.
As to Appellant’s claim concerning whether the State knowingly used “false
testimony,” Appellant confuses the use of inconsistent or recanted testimony with false
testimony. Furthermore, the testimony used and the sufficiency of the evidence
presented were both addressed in our original opinion. As to Appellant’s claim
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
concerning ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to develop whether the
State’s witness, Natasha Heller, wished to recant her testimony, the record simply does
not support that claim. Where the record does not support a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the appropriate means of developing that record is via a writ of
habeas corpus. See Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592-93 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012).
Remaining convinced that there are no non-frivolous issues which support a
finding of reversible error, we deny Appellant’s motion for rehearing.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
3