Vecentie Sontiago Morales v. State of Texas, No. 14-22-00514-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 16, 2024). · Go Syfert
Vecentie Sontiago Morales v. State of Texas, No. 14-22-00514-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 16, 2024). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vecentie Sontiago Morales
v.
the State of Texas
14-22-00514-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 16, 2024.
Unpublished opinion
Published
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16, 2024

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00514-CR

VECENTIE SONTIAGO MORALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 1
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1730004R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction of two counts of the second-degree felony offense of sexual assault, one count of the third-degree felony offense of continuous violence against a family member; and one count of the third-degree felony offense of assault on a family member by impeding breath or circulation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B), 22.011(a)(1)(A); 25.22(e). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). On November 13, 2023, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).