Daniel a Reyes-Gomez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00095-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 22, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00095-CR ——————————— DANIEL A. REYES-GOMEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1738096

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Daniel A. Reyes-Gomez was charged by indictment with the

offense of sexual abuse of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.02(b). He pleaded

not guilty and proceeded to trial. The jury found him guilty of the charged offense

and the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for sixty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.1 The trial court certified that the case is not

a plea-bargain case and Appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a

notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, later amended,

together with a supporting Anders brief stating the record presents no reversible

error and therefore, the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of

Anders. Id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). Counsel explains that the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to prove

the charged offense and that the imposed sentence is within the range of

punishment of five to ninety-nine years or life in prison. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,

no pet.). He thus concludes he is unable to advance any grounds of error that

warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153,

155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The State waived its right to

file a response and Appellant did not file a pro se brief.2

1 A $100 fine was assessed. 2 Appellant’s counsel certified in his amended motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his motion to withdraw, the Anders brief, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel also certified that he advised Appellant, by letter, of his right to file a pro se response, of his right to request a copy of the record, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 After conducting an independent review of the entire record on appeal, we

conclude there is no reversible error in the record and there are no arguable

grounds for review. The appeal is thus frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is frivolous); Garner v. State, 300

S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether

arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). An

appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s amended

motion to withdraw.3 Appointed counsel, Franklin Bynum, must immediately send

Counsel further stated that he met with Appellant by video conference and explained to him the Anders process and materials. Additionally, on February 13, 2025, this Court notified Appellant that his pro se brief in response to counsel’s Anders brief was due to be filed by March 31, 2025, and advised him that he was entitled to a copy of the record on appeal, providing a blank Pro [S]e Motion for Access to Appellate Record. 3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

3 Appellant the notice required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and

file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).