Guadalupe Rosales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 331st District Court of Travis County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-07-0177-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
MARCH 25, 2008
______________________________
GUADALUPE ROSALES, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;
NO. D-1-DC-06-500380; HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Guadalupe Rosales, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault.
Appellant was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant appeals
these convictions. We affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967). In support of her motion
to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her
opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App.1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgments. Additionally, counsel has
certified that she has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw
and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. See
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised
appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.
By her Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,
but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have made an independent review of the entire
record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an
appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such
arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgments are affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.