Michael Moreno v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 23, 2023
• Docket: 11-22-00116-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed March 23, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00116-CR __________

MICHAEL MORENO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 29580-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Appellant, Michael Moreno, of the second-degree felony offense of sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (f) (West Supp. 2022). The evidence at the guilt/innocence phase consisted of the testimony of the child (T.M.), her father, the interviewing detective, and the sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), and Appellant’s video-recorded confession. T.M. testified that she and Appellant had sexual intercourse that night and that it was “consensual.” T.M.’s father testified that Appellant confessed to having sexual intercourse with his daughter that night and apologized to him for doing so. Detective Frank Shoemaker testified that Appellant confessed to the offense in an electronically recorded oral statement after receiving and waiving the warnings under Miranda v. Arizona and Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, §§ 2(a), 3(a) (West 2018). The SANE nurse testified that she conducted an acute examination of T.M. shortly after the incident, which revealed injuries to T.M.’s posterior fourchette and hymen. Following a one-day trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of the offense. Appellant pleaded true to the State’s enhancement paragraphs, which alleged two prior federal felony offenses, and the parties agreed to a punishment of twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for the offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the parties’ agreement. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

2 Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

March 23, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.