Alejandro Londono Arteaga v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00372-CR

__________________

ALEJANDRO LONDONO ARTEAGA, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 22-05-06335-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Alejandro Londono Arteaga for aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than six years of age, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(2)(B). Arteaga pleaded “not guilty” to the offense, but a jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed punishment at confinement for life and a $10,000 fine.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

2

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Arteaga to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Arteaga.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Arteaga may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

3

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on October 3, 2024 Opinion Delivered October 23, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.