Eugenio Allende Gil v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00324-CR

________________

EUGENIO ALLENDE GIL, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 22-04-04356-CR

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Eugenio Allende Gil was charged with sexual performance by a child under the age of fourteen, a first-degree felony, with a penalty range of five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment, and up to a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 43.25(c).

After electing to allow the jury to determine his sentence, Gil pleaded guilty to the charge of sexual performance by a child, retaining his right of appeal as to

2

punishment, only. The jury assessed Gil’s sentence at life imprisonment, with a $10,000 fine, and this appeal followed.1 Gil’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Gil was notified of his right to file a pro se brief, and he did so on May 14, 2025. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

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 appellate record and considered Appellant’s pro se response, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178

1 The trial court waived the fine and court costs. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

Ann. art. 43.091(a).

3

S.W.3d at 827–28 (“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 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. 2 AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT

Justice

Submitted on July 7, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 23, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

2 Gil 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. 68.1.