Augustin Jaime Perez v. The State of Texas — Memorandum Opinion by Justice Meza

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00137-CR
Augustin Jaime PEREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 22-11-00148-CRK
Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: 	Velia J. Meza, Justice
Sitting: 	Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 21, 2026
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; ABATED AND REMANDED
In November 2022, Augustin Jaime Perez was indicted of continuous sexual abuse of a
young child, a first-degree felony. TEX. P ENAL C ODE § 21.02. On February 24, 2025, Perez’s jury
trial commenced and at its conclusion the jury found Perez guilty of the charged offense and
sentenced him to 50 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional
Division and assessed a $10,000 fine.

04-25-00137-CR
- 2 -
Perez’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the
record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and requested permission to
withdraw. The brief concluded that this appeal “has no non-frivolous basis reflected in the record
and thus is without merit.” Counsel also provided Perez a copy of the brief and informed him of
his right to review the record and to file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court notified Perez of his ability to file a pro se brief and the deadline
to file it; yet no pro se brief was filed.
Under Anders, reviewing courts conduct their own independent evaluation of the entire
record. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon completion of this
independent evaluation, there are only two possible outcomes: the court either (1) confirms that
there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal and grants counsel’s motion to withdraw or (2) finds
that there are plausible grounds for appeal and remands the cause to the trial court for appointment
of new counsel. Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319 n.16.
After reviewing the record and brief, we conclude that at least one arguable ground for
appeal exists, including, but not limited to, ineffective assistance of counsel during the State’s
closing argument. Accordingly, we grant Perez’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. We
abate this appeal and remand this cause for the trial court to appoint new counsel, or if Perez
wishes, to allow him to proceed by representing himself. Alternatively, Perez may choose to
abandon and dismiss the appeal.
Velia J. Meza, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH