Carlos Vigil v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 07-10-0367-CR
NO. 07-10-0368-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
JUNE 13, 2011
CARLOS ENRIQUE VIGIL,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NOS. 57173-C & 57174-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Carlos Enrique Vigil (appellant) appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual
assault of a child and sexual assault of a child, both offenses enhanced. Before us is
appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he
certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was
without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of
appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated May 4, 2011, this court also
notified appellant of his right to tender his own response and set June 3, 2011, as the
deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed two potential areas for appeal. They included 1) the sufficiency of the
evidence, and 2) the cumulation of sentences. However, counsel then proceeded to
explain why none of the issues required reversal on appeal.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with those
conclusions.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2