Rolando Calderilla v. The State of Texas Appeal from 356th District Court of Hardin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00114-CR __________________ ROLANDO CALDERILLA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th Judicial District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23812 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Rolando Calderilla’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends he cannot advance a nonfrivolous argument to support Calderilla’s appeal from Calderilla’s conviction for aggravated 1 assault.1 After reviewing the record, we agree no arguable issues support Calderilla’s appeal. 2 Calderilla appeals from a judgment the trial court rendered following his open plea. The court found Calderilla guilty of aggravated assault and assessed a twentyyear sentence. The trial court also found Calderilla used a deadly weapon when he committed the crime. On appeal, Calderilla’s court-appointed, appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, counsel concludes Calderilla’s appeal is frivolous. 3 In response, Calderilla filed a pro se brief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and claiming he did not voluntarily, intelligently, or knowingly plead guilty when asked if he was guilty of committing the aggravated assault. According to Calderilla, he has only a limited ability to understand English, was unable to effectively communicate with his attorney, and did not understand the court proceedings before deciding to plead guilty. He also argues the trial court abused its discretion by assessing a twenty-year sentence, the maximum punishment available to punish a person found guilty of See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 3 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 2 1 2 committing a second-degree felony. Lastly, Calderilla asserts the attorney appointed to represent him in his appeal was constitutionally ineffective in discharging his duties to Calderilla as counsel in his appeal. In response, the State argues the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed. After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Calderilla’s counsel, Calderilla’s pro se response, the State’s response to Calderilla’s brief, and Calderilla’s pro se reply, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that Calderilla’s appeal is frivolous. Therefore, we need not require the trial court to appoint new counsel to re-brief the appeal.4 Because no arguable issues support the appeal, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on February 14, 2020 Opinion Delivered June 24, 2020 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 4 Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 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.
