Jesus Perales v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 371st District Court of Tarrant County

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0196-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 28, 2009 ______________________________ JESUS PERALES, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; NO. 1067039D; HONORABLE MOLLEE WESTFALL AND WILLIAM BRIGHAM, JUDGES _______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jesus Perales, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Appellant also pleaded true to one prior felony enhancement. Subsequently, the trial court, after conducting a punishment hearing and receiving a presentence report, assessed appellant’s punishment at 40 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed. We affirm. Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 74445. 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 judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he 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. 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 his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.1 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 1 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX . R. APP. P. 48.4. 3