Roberto Serrano Franco v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 11-22-00281-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed May 9, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00281-CR __________

ROBERTO SERRANO FRANCO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-21-1154-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Appellant, Roberto Serrano Franco, of two felony offenses: aggravated assault of a public servant, a first-degree felony, and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2023) and § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West 2016). The evidence at the guilt/innocence phase consisted primarily of testimony and video evidence, which showed that Appellant was driving the stolen work truck that broke through the warehouse door, hit a uniformed patrol officer, fled the scene, and evaded the subsequent police pursuit. The jury found Appellant guilty of both offenses. Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s four enhancement paragraphs, and he testified at the punishment hearing. The jury found the enhancements to be “true” and assessed Appellant’s punishment at sixty years’ confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 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 the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has 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 and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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). 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

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.

2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

May 9, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.