Carlos Vigil v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 251st District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-10-0367-CR NO. 07-10-0368-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JUNE 13, 2011 CARLOS ENRIQUE VIGIL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NOS. 57173-C & 57174-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, PRESIDING Memorandum Opinion Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Carlos Enrique Vigil (appellant) appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and sexual assault of a child, both offenses enhanced. Before us is appointed counsel s motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 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 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated May 4, 2011, this court also notified appellant of his right to tender his own response and set June 3, 2011, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal. They included 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, and 2) the cumulation of sentences. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why none of the issues required reversal on appeal. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record 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 those conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgments are affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
