Frank Valdemiroy Toledo v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 07-24-00411-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00411-CR No. 07-24-00412-CR

FRANK VALDEMIROY TOLEDO, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 251st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 33038C, 34171C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding

March 12, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Frank Valdemiroy Toledo, appeals from his convictions for possession

of child pornography and possession with intent to promote child pornography.1 His court-

appointed counsel filed an Anders2 brief concluding that the appeals present no arguable

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26(d), (e).

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). grounds for reversal. Having independently reviewed the record, we agree with counsel’s

assessment and affirm the trial court’s judgments and multiple convictions of possession

with the intent to promote child pornography.

Two separate indictments charged Appellant with nineteen offenses: seven for

possession with intent to promote child pornography and twelve for possession of child

pornography. At trial, the State presented evidence that Appellant downloaded child

pornography images and videos to his phone and laptop computer and sent at least seven

videos to an unknown recipient. There was no dispute that the images and videos

constituted child pornography or that they were found on Appellant’s devices. In a

recorded interview with law enforcement, Appellant acknowledged that child pornography

was sometimes sent to him but claimed he deleted it. Appellant testified in his own

defense, asserting that someone else must have downloaded the material onto his

devices. The jury rejected this defense and found him guilty on all counts. The trial court

sentenced him to an aggregate of fifty years of confinement followed by ten years of

community supervision.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and explaining why no arguable grounds for appeal exist. See

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding)

(holding that “[i]n Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points

of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and

procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities”); see also Davis v. State, 683

S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.) (accord).

2 Counsel also certified that he notified Appellant of the Anders filing, provided

copies of the brief and motion to withdraw, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se

response and to seek discretionary review, and provided the appellate record. This Court

notified Appellant of his right to respond. Appellant filed a pro se response raising claims

of innocence and suggesting that others had access to his devices. We have received

and considered his response.

We conducted our own independent review of the record and found no arguable

issues. Appellant’s pro se response reasserts the same alternative-perpetrator defense

that the jury rejected, and it does not identify any arguable appellate error. See Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court’s judgments and grant counsel’s motions to withdraw.3

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel is ordered to send Appellant a copy of this opinion and judgment within five days and

advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. 3