Guadalupe Rosales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 331st District Court of Travis County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-07-0177-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MARCH 25, 2008 ______________________________ GUADALUPE ROSALES, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY; NO. D-1-DC-06-500380; HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE _______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Guadalupe Rosales, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. Appellant was sentenced to 15 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant appeals these convictions. We affirm. Appellant s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967). In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court s judgments. Additionally, counsel has certified that she has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By her Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgments are affirmed. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2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.
