Raul Figueroa-Rosas v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00275-CR
________________
RAUL FIGUEROA-ROSAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 21-08-10629-CR
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Raul Figueroa-Rosas appeals his conviction for indecency with a child, a
second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). After filing the
notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Figueroa-Rosas in
his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Figueroa-Rosas by filing
an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief,
Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be
1
addressed in Figueroa-Rosas’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of
the record. In the brief, Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney explains why, under the record in
Figueroa-Rosas’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney also represented that he sent
Figueroa-Rosas a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the
Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Figueroa-Rosas, by letter, that he could
file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before February 10, 2023.
Figueroa-Rosas, however, failed to respond.
When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently
examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the
defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the
clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no
arguable grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the
nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues
raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the
court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-
2
brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Figueroa-Rosas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on March 16, 2023
Opinion Delivered May 17, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
3