Marcus Anthony Diaz v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00218-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-24-00218-CR ________________

MARCUS ANTHONY DIAZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24DC-CR-00467 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Marcus Anthony Diaz guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a

child, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). The jury assessed

Diaz’s punishment at sixty years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.32.

Diaz’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On December 10, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Diaz

to file a pro se brief. Diaz did not file a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine 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. (citations omitted).

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a 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

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude

the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. Therefore, we

find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.

2 Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment. 1 0 F

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on April 8, 2025 Opinion Delivered April 9, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1Diaz 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. 3