eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-02

Juan Rodriguez Guajardo v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00439-CR
JUAN RODRIGUEZ GUAJARDO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-1196-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Juan Rodriguez Guajardo was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young
child (Count I) and indecency with a child by contact (Count II). The jury assessed
Guajardo’s punishment at life imprisonment for Count I and twenty years’ imprisonment
for Count II. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This is the appeal of his
indecency-with-a-child-by-contact (Count II) conviction.
Guajardo’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967).
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance
with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the
duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v.
State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    ,
319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; see Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    ,
509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when
it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n. 10 (1988).
After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment as to Count II.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Guajardo as to Count II is
granted.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Guajardo v. State                                                                        Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed February 19, 2020
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Guajardo v. State                               Page 3