Leonardo Mendoza Quinonez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this CaseOpinion issued December 20, 2007
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-06-00705-CR
NO. 01-06-00706-CR
NO. 01-06-00707-CR
__________
LEONARDO MENDOZA QUINONEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1042909, 1042910, 1042911
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Leonardo Mendoza Quinonez, guilty of three separate offenses of aggravated assault of a child // and assessed his punishment at confinement for sixty years for each offense. The trial court ordered that the sentences run consecutively. //
Appellant s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 744 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in four points of error that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his convictions, the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of an expert witness who elicited disclosure from complainant through leading questions in violation of appellant s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process, // and the trial court erred in admitting appellant s involuntary written statement taken in violation of [article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] // and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by a de facto police officer. //
Having reviewed the record, counsel s brief, and appellant s pro se reponse, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgments of the trial court. We grant counsel s motions to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 72 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). //
Terry Jennings
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Keyes.
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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.