Ace Allen Kretzer Jr. v. State

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 ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on June 12, 2013 Opinion Delivered June 26, 2013 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3