Henrique Alberto Rivas v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-23-00094-CR
________________

HENRIQUE ALBERTO RIVAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F15-22560
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Henrique Alberto Rivas was charged with aggravated robbery, a

first-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2). He was found guilty and

sentenced to 40 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.

Rivas’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

1
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified

Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing

so. Appellant requested three extensions of the deadline for filing his pro se brief,

and we granted those extensions until February 23, 2024, but we received no

response from Appellant.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 3, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

3