Alexander Christopher Lopez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 350th District Court of Taylor County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed October 20, 2022 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ Nos. 11-22-00071-CR & 11-22-00102-CR ___________ ALEXANDER CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 14075-D & 13650-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Alexander Christopher Lopez, Appellant, waived a jury in each cause and entered an open plea of guilty to two unrelated offenses: murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(1) (West 2019), § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2021). The trial court admonished Appellant, We note that the State waived the charge of capital murder that was included as a separate count in the indictment in trial court cause no. 14075-D. 1 accepted his judicial confessions, and recessed each of the proceedings so that a presentence investigation report could be prepared. The trial court later conducted a joint hearing on punishment, at which several witnesses testified. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the offenses of murder and aggravated assault, made affirmative deadly weapon findings, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life for the offense of murder and at imprisonment for a term of twenty years for the aggravated assault, to run concurrently. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each cause. Each motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the briefs, a copy of the motions to withdraw, and a copy of the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record in each case and to file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed any response to counsel’s Anders briefs. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the records, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 2 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2 2 We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. PER CURIAM October 20, 2022 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3
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.
