Henrique Alberto Rivas v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-23-00094-CR ________________ HENRIQUE ALBERTO RIVAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F15-22560 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Henrique Alberto Rivas was charged with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2). He was found guilty and sentenced to 40 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed. Rivas’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also 1 filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so. Appellant requested three extensions of the deadline for filing his pro se brief, and we granted those extensions until February 23, 2024, but we received no response from Appellant. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. 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.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 1 AFFIRMED. JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on April 1, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 3, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson 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.
