Joel Jacob Flores v. State

NO. 07-10-0018-CR

                                                             

                                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 

                                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

                                                                 AT AMARILLO

 

                                                                     PANEL D

 

                                                               AUGUST 3, 2010

                                            ______________________________

 

                                                         JOEL JACOB FLORES,

 

                                                                                                            Appellant

 

                                                                             v.

 

                                                        THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

                                                                                                            Appellee

                                           _______________________________

 

                      FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

 

                         NO. 1102149D; HON. GEORGE GALLAGHER, PRESIDING

                                           _______________________________

 

Anders Opinion

_______________________________

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Joel Jacob Flores (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age.  Appellant’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit.  Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se.  Appellant timely filed a pro se response.

            In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal.  They included the 1) admonishments concerning punishment and sex offender registration, 2) amount of punishment assessed and 3) ineffective assistance of counsel.  However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit.

            In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record and appellant’s pro se response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  After doing so, we concur with counsel’s conclusions. 

            Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.[1]

 

                                                                                    Brian Quinn

                                                                                    Chief Justice

 

Do not publish.    

 

 

 



1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

[1]Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.