Armando Napoles v. The State of Texas Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-23-00232-CR Armando Napoles, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR-19-0547-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Armando Napoles was charged with the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.02. The indictment included an enhancement allegation alleging that Napoles had previously been convicted of the felony offense of sexual assault of a child. See id. § 22.011. Following a trial, the jury found Napoles guilty. The trial court found the enhancement allegation to be true and assessed his punishment at life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See id. § 12.42(c); Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.145(a). Napoles appealed his conviction. Napoles’s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Napoles’s court-appointed attorney’s brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Napoles’s counsel represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Napoles; advised Napoles of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided Napoles with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). See Kelly v. State, Napoles has not filed a pro se brief challenging his conviction, and the deadline for filing a pro se brief has expired. We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction. __________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker, Justice Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith Affirmed Filed: December 8, 2023 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.
