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
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.
