Alexander Votion v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 7, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00235-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00235-CR

Alexander VOTION, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-CR-10529 Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 7, 2025

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Appellant Alexander Votion was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child,

a first-degree felony, and the jury assessed punishment at thirty years’ imprisonment. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. The trial court signed a judgment of conviction and sentence in

accordance with the jury’s verdict. Appellant now appeals.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of

the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and requested permission 04-24-00235-CR

to withdraw. Counsel concludes that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel

provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed appellant of his right to review the record

and to file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see

also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam);

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court

notified appellant of the deadline to file a pro se brief; however, appellant did not file a brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and

agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86 (explaining that after the

procedural requirements of Anders are satisfied and the court has independently reviewed the

record, the court will grant the motion to withdraw and either dispose of the appeal if found

frivolous or abate and remand the appeal if found non-frivolous); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1

(explaining that if after independent review, the court finds arguable legal points, the appeal will

be abated for the trial court and new counsel is appointed if individual is indigent).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and any such petition must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

-2-