Scott Ian Leal v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00403-CR

SCOTT IAN LEAL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court
Comal County, Texas1
Trial Court No. CR2022-108, Judge Dwight E. Peschel, Presiding

July 11, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant Scott Ian Leal appeals the trial court’s judgment by which he was

convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Appellant timely appealed. Appellant’s

court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders2

brief. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Third Court of Appeals. Thus, we are
bound by the latter’s precedent should it conflict with ours. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certified that he conducted a

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflected no arguable basis

for reversing appellant’s convictions. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45; In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel also explained why, under the

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. He further demonstrated that

he complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by 1) providing a copy

of the brief, motion to withdraw, and appellate record to appellant, 2) notifying appellant

of his right to file a pro se response, and 3) informing appellant of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. By letter dated

March 20, 2024, this Court granted appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a

response to counsel’s motion and brief by April 19, 2024. To date, appellant has not filed

a response or otherwise communicated a desire to do so.

We independently examined the record to determine whether there were any non-

frivolous issues supporting reversal as required by In re Schulman. We found none. So,

after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we 1) agree that there is no

plausible basis for reversal of appellant’s conviction, 2) affirm the trial court’s judgment,

and 3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3

Alex Yarbrough
Justice

Do not publish.

3 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of

the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and
ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.

2