Daniel Salvador AKA Daniel Giron Salvador v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 07-22-00192-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-22-00192-CR

DANIEL SALVADOR AKA DANIEL GIRON SALVADOR, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 403rd District Court Travis County, Texas1 Trial Court No. D-1-DC-20-203444, Honorable Brenda Kennedy, Presiding

May 10, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Daniel Giron Salvador, Appellant, was charged with two counts of aggravated

sexual assault of a child2 and two counts of indecency with a child by contact.3 A jury

1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to

this Court from the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. Should a conflict exist between precedent of the Third Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021. 3 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11. convicted him on all counts and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment on the

aggravated sexual assault counts and ten years’ imprisonment on the indecency counts.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders4 brief in support of a motion

to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and motion to obtain the appellate record; and informed him of his right to

file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to

file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The

State has filed a response setting forth its disagreement with Appellant’s counsel’s

assessment that there are no arguable issues to raise in this appeal. The State’s

response summarizes the Anders procedure, but does not identify any arguable grounds

for appeal.

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

2 By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of

the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate

review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.5 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

5 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.