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Do Not Publish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