Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JUAN A. SANCHEZ–CARRILLO, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Opinion By Justice Bridges
A jury convicted Juan A. Sanchez–Carrillo of continuous sexual abuse of a young child, aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years, and three counts of indecency with a child by contact, as alleged as separate counts in one indictment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b), 21.11(a), 22.021(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at forty years' imprisonment for the continuous sexual abuse and aggravated sexual assault convictions and twenty years' imprisonment for the indecency with a child convictions. The trial court ordered that the sentences on the three indecency with a child convictions be served consecutively to the sentences on the other two convictions. A separate judgment was entered for each count. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.
Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. A court of appeals is not required to address the merits of claims raised in a pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). Rather, the Court's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues. Id.
After reviewing counsel's brief, appellant's pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
We affirm the trial court's judgments.
101517F.U05 S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT
JUAN A. SANCHEZ–CARRILLO, Appellant
No. 05–10–01517–CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 429th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.429–80270–10).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices FitzGerald and Lang participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered March 28, 2012.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 05–10–01517–CR
Decided: March 28, 2012
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)