Roke Acosta v. State ( 2005 )

NO. 07-04-0281-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JULY 11, 2005
______________________________
ROKE ACOSTA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;
NO. B3798-0307; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Roke Acosta appeals his conviction for the felony offense of indecency
with a child. We agree with appointed counsel’s conclusion that the record fails to show
any meritorious issue which would support the appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant was charged in an indictment alleging he engaged in sexual contact with
a child younger than seventeen. He pled not guilty and was tried before a jury which found
him guilty. The jury assessed punishment at twenty years confinement in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $10,000.00. Appellant’s
appointed trial counsel timely perfected appeal and new counsel was appointed to
represent appellant on appeal.
Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), in which he
represents he has searched the record and in his professional opinion, under the controlling
authorities and facts of this case, there is no reversible error or legitimate grounds for
appeal. Counsel has informed appellant by letter of his right to review the trial record and
to file a pro se brief. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet.
ref’d). By letter this court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to
the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has not filed a brief
or other response.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we will
not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this court
determines the appeal has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for appointment of new
counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
In a supplemental brief counsel discusses some of the evidence presented at trial
and objections made. Appellant was described as a “curandero” or “witch doctor” by his
son and daughter.1 Trial counsel objected to admission of the report of an expert witness
and testimony concerning appellant’s prosecution for practicing medicine without a license.
1
Appellant’s long time housekeeper denied he was a curandero or witch doctor.
2
Appellant waived any objection to the report when it was later offered into evidence, and
evidence of his prior prosecution for practicing medicine without a license was admitted
elsewhere without objection. Those complaints have not been preserved for appeal. See
Penry v. State, 691 S.W.2d 636, 655 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (admission of the same
evidence elsewhere without objection cures any error).
Our review of counsel’s brief and the record convinces us that appellate counsel
conducted a thorough review of the record. We have also made an independent
examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds
which might support the appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree it presents
no meritorious grounds for review. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
3