Saturnino Gutierrez Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00312-CR Saturnino GUTIERREZ JR., Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 15-0462-CR-A Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2018 AFFIRMED A jury convicted Saturnino Gutierrez, Jr. of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child, and the trial court assessed punishment at life imprisonment. Because we conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Gutierrez’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief with this court representing that she conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on Gutierrez’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel explains why she concluded the appeal is 04-17-00312-CR without merit. Counsel states she reviewed the indictment and evidence adduced at trial, as well as the record of the revocation hearing. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel provided Gutierrez with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw and informed Gutierrez of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel advised Gutierrez to file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record and enclosed a form motion for that purpose. See id; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Thereafter, we set deadlines for Gutierrez to file any motion for the record and any pro se brief. Although Gutierrez requested access to the appellate record, Gutierrez did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. 1 Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. Irene Rios, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH 1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gutierrez wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Gutierrez must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Gutierrez must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. -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.
