Dennis Avelar-Solorano v. The State of Texas Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00685-CR Dennis AVELAR-SOLORANO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR0605 Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 14, 2021 AFFIRMED Appellant Dennis Avelar-Solorano was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. Upon being convicted in a jury trial, Avelar-Solorano was sentenced to three years in prison. Avelar-Solorano’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable issues and concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certified that Avelar-Solorano was sent: (1) a copy 04-19-00685-CR of the brief, (2) a copy of the motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion to allow him to request the appellate record. Counsel also certified that he informed Avelar-Solorano of his right to file his own brief. On September 1, 2020, this court issued an order advising Appellant the manner in which he could access the appellate record. The order advised Appellant that if he desired to file a pro se brief, the brief was due no later than forty-five days from the date of the order. The order was sent to Appellant at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice where he was sentenced to serve three years. The order was returned as undeliverable. A second copy of the order was sent to an alternative address supplied by defense counsel, which was the address of the Honduran Consulate in Houston, Texas. That order was also returned as undeliverable. This court knows of no other address at which Appellant can be contacted. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. “It is an appellant’s duty to keep his counsel and the Court apprised of his location.” Lopez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 479, 481 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (citing In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). In this case, it does not appear that Appellant has kept his counsel informed of his current whereabouts. Nevertheless, we have independently reviewed the record and agree that the appeal is frivolous with no arguable issue warranting reversal. See id. (citing Torres v. State, 271 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.)); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Zuniga v. State, No. 04-14-00135-CR, 2014 WL 5020140, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 8, 2014, no pet.) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.)). No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Avelar-Solorano wish to seek further review of this case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to -2- 04-19-00685-CR file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Do not publish -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.
