Henrique Alberto Rivas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00094-CR

________________

HENRIQUE ALBERTO RIVAS, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F15-22560

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Henrique Alberto Rivas was charged with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2). He was found guilty and sentenced to 40 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.

Rivas’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

2

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). We notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so. Appellant requested three extensions of the deadline for filing his pro se brief, and we granted those extensions until February 23, 2024, but we received no response from Appellant.

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 entire appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues 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 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.1

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

3

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT

Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 3, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.