Jose Angel Moreno v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 2, 2013
Docket14-12-00807-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Jose Angel Moreno v. State (Jose Angel Moreno v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jose Angel Moreno v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00807-CR

JOSE ANGEL MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1322999

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen (14) years of age. On August 24, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine (9) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by advancing frivolous contentions which might arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); and Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Jackson v. State
485 S.W.2d 553 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Gainous v. State
436 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Currie v. State
516 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jose Angel Moreno v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-angel-moreno-v-state-texapp-2013.