Eugenio Allende Gil v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00324-CR
________________

EUGENIO ALLENDE GIL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-04-04356-CR
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Eugenio Allende Gil was charged with sexual performance by a

child under the age of fourteen, a first-degree felony, with a penalty range of five to

ninety-nine years or life imprisonment, and up to a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 43.25(c).

After electing to allow the jury to determine his sentence, Gil pleaded guilty

to the charge of sexual performance by a child, retaining his right of appeal as to

1
punishment, only. The jury assessed Gil’s sentence at life imprisonment, with a

$10,000 fine, and this appeal followed.1

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

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

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). Gil was notified of

his right to file a pro se brief, and he did so on May 14, 2025. The Court of Criminal

Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders

brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

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

appellate record and considered Appellant’s pro se response, and we agree with

counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178

1
The trial court waived the fine and court costs. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 43.091(a).
2
S.W.3d at 827–28 (“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. 2

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on July 7, 2025
Opinion Delivered July 23, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

2
Gil may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.1.
3