Alfredo Rosales-Villalobos v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 09-23-00163-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00163-CR __________________

ALFREDO ROSALES-VILLALOBOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-11-16165-CR _______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alfredo Rosales-Villalobos appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual

assault of a child, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B).

After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent

Rosales-Villalobos in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to

Rosales-Villalobos by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744 (1967).

1 In the brief, Rosales-Villalobos’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Rosales-Villalobos’s appeal. See id.; High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains

a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Rosales-Villalobos’s attorney

explains why, under the record in Rosales-Villalobos’s case, no arguable issues exist

to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Id. Rosales-Villalobos’s attorney also

represented that he sent Rosales-Villalobos a copy of the brief and the record. When

the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Rosales-

Villalobos, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on

or before February 26, 2024. Rosales-Villalobos did not file a response. 1

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently

examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the

defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no

arguable grounds to support the 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

1Our records indicate that Rosales-Villalobos filed two motions for extensions

to file an appellate brief. This Court granted both extensions, setting a final deadline of February 26, 2024 for Rosales-Villalobos to file a brief. However, Rosales- Villalobos did not file a brief. 2 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.”). Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. Id. at

826. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney

to re-brief the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 2

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024 Do Not Publish

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

2Rosales-Villalobos may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition

for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3