Joel Jacob Flores v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 396th District Court of Tarrant County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-10-0018-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D AUGUST 3, 2010 ______________________________ JOEL JACOB FLORES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________ FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; NO. 1102149D; HON. GEORGE GALLAGHER, PRESIDING _______________________________ Anders Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Joel Jacob Flores (appellant) appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. Appellant s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders 1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. Appellant timely filed a pro se response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed three potential areas for appeal. They included the 1) admonishments concerning punishment and sex offender registration, 2) amount of punishment assessed and 3) ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit. In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record and appellant s pro se response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed. 1 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion. 2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.
