Raul Figueroa-Rosas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00275-CR ________________ RAUL FIGUEROA-ROSAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21-08-10629-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Raul Figueroa-Rosas appeals his conviction for indecency with a child, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Figueroa-Rosas in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Figueroa-Rosas by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the brief, Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be 1 addressed in Figueroa-Rosas’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney explains why, under the record in Figueroa-Rosas’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Figueroa-Rosas’s attorney also represented that he sent Figueroa-Rosas a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Figueroa-Rosas, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before February 10, 2023. Figueroa-Rosas, however, failed to respond. When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re2 brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Figueroa-Rosas may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. ________________________________ JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on March 16, 2023 Opinion Delivered May 17, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. 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.
