In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-13-00143-CR
MIGUEL RAMOS LOPEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 217th District Court
Angelina County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-0054
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Miguel Ramos Lopez appeals his conviction of the offense of aggravated sexual assault
of a child, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012).
Lopez was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Lopez was represented by different
appointed counsel at trial and on appeal. 1
Lopez’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
trial court proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the
evidence elicited during the course of the proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v.
California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Lopez August 19, 2013, informing Lopez of his
right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel also filed a motion
with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Lopez has not filed a pro se
response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.
1
Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are
unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant
issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues
support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit
and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
In this case, we shall modify the judgment to reflect the correct statute for the offense of
aggravated sexual assault of a child, the offense of which Lopez was convicted. The judgment
lists the statute for this offense as Section 22.02 of the Texas Penal Code, pertaining to
aggravated assault. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011). The correct statute for the
offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child is Section 22.021 of the Texas Penal Code. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure give this Court
authority to modify judgments to correct errors and make the record speak the truth. TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b); French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Rhoten v. State,
299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.); Gray v. State, 628 S.W.2d 228, 233
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1982, pet. ref’d). Therefore, we hereby modify the judgment to
indicate that the correct statute for the offense of which Lopez was convicted is Section 22.021
of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021.
3
As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: October 24, 2013
Date Decided: October 25, 2013
Do Not Publish
2
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either
the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was
overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk
of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4