Donaldo Alfredo Santos v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00115-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DONALDO ALFREDO SANTOS, § APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Donaldo Alfredo Santos appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child
and indecency with 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) and Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of A.S., a child, and
indecency with a child. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, A.S.’s mother, Zoila Leon, testified that A.S. was born November 16, 2005. She
further testified that one night when Appellant was staying with their family, her daughter came
to her room during the night crying. According to Leon, A.S. told her that Appellant touched her
on her chest and below.
Courtney Tindall, who, at that time, was a forensic interviewer for Harold’s House Child
Advocacy Center, testified that she interviewed A.S. in December 2018. Tindall stated that,
during the interview, A.S. told her that, two years earlier, Appellant touched her private part and
her breasts. According to Tindall, A.S. specified that Appellant moved her underwear, put his
fingers inside of her, took them out, licked them, and put them back inside of her.
Following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found
Appellant “guilty” as charged on both counts, and the matter proceeded to a trial on punishment.
Ultimately, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for eighty-five years for
aggravated sexual assault of a child and twenty years for indecency with a child. The trial court
sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered that the sentence for indecency with a child run
consecutive to the sentence for aggravated sexual assault. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (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 and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

1
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. See Kelly v. State, 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
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered March 8, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 8, 2023

NO. 12-22-00115-CR

DONALDO ALFREDO SANTOS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1923962)

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.