Juan Perez Moreno v. The State of Texas Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00066-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JUAN PEREZ MORENO, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 145TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Juan Perez Moreno appeals his conviction for four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and pleaded “not guilty.”1 The jury found Appellant “guilty” of all four counts alleged in the indictment. The jury assessed his punishment at seven years of imprisonment on count one, twelve years of imprisonment on count two, eight years of imprisonment on count three, and twenty years of imprisonment on count four. The trial court ordered his sentences be served consecutively. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has diligently reviewed and evaluated the appellate record and found no error 1 Appellant was originally charged by a five count indictment, including a count alleging continuous sexual abuse of a child, against the same victim as the other counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02 (West Supp. 2017). However, prior to trial, the State abandoned the continuous sexual abuse of a child count and proceeded on the remaining four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.2 We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error. CONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered May 8, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed. 2 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT MAY 8, 2018 NO. 12-17-00066-CR JUAN PEREZ MORENO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1521798) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
