Martine Munoz v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00278-CR

________________

MARTINE MUNOZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21DC-CR-00362

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Martine Munoz for sexual assault of a child.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2). Munoz pleaded “not guilty,” and was represented by counsel. The jury found Munoz guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment. Munoz pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph of the indictment, and the jury sentenced him to sixty years imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2

Munoz’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that 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). On January 21, 2025, after Munoz’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Munoz to file a pro se brief, and Munoz filed a pro se brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a later-filed pro se response, we need not address the merits of the issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. See 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. (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, counsel’s brief, and Munoz’s pro se brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to

3

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 AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 5, 2026 Do Not Publish

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

1 Munoz may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.