Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-13-2021
Case Style:
Christian Abel Valera v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 02-19-00306-CR
Judge: Elizabeth Kerr
Court: Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph W. Spence
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Fort Worth, TX - Criminal defense attorney represented Christian Abel Valera with an Assault charge.
Before a jury and without a plea bargain, Valera pleaded guilty to Count 1—
assault bodily injury of a family or household member by impeding the breathing or
circulation of the blood of the victim with a prior conviction, a second-degree
felony—and Count 2—assault bodily injury of a family or household member with a
prior conviction, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1),
(b)(2)(A), (b-3). Valera also pleaded true to the repeat-offender notice to both counts.
As a result, Valera’s punishment range for Count 1 was that of a first-degree felony
and his punishment range for Count 2 was that of a second-degree felony. See id.
§ 12.42(a), (b).
During voir dire, Valera successfully removed one venire member for cause. At
voir dire’s conclusion, the trial court seated and swore in the jurors without objection.
When testimony started the next day, Valera stated on the record that he
wanted to wear his jail clothing and that he had discussed the matter with his attorney.
The day before, for voir dire, Valera had worn a coat and tie.
3
During trial, the trial court sustained a number of Valera’s objections; on each
occasion, though, Valera requested no additional relief. See Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d
467, 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court overruled Valera’s relevance
objection and admitted evidence that an officer had arrested Valera for an earlier
offense. Any dispute over that evidence’s admissibility vanished when Valera later
admitted committing and being convicted for that offense. See Prince v. State,
574 S.W.3d 561, 574 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d). The trial court
overruled the State’s one objection.
At the charge conference, Valera did not object. And the punishment charge
reflects the correct enhanced punishment ranges for both offenses.
After the jury retired to deliberate, it sent the court one note with a question.
Neither the State nor Valera objected to the trial court’s response.
Ultimately, the jury assessed Valera’s punishments at 25 years’ and 10 years’
incarceration for Count 1 and Count 2, respectively. Both punishments were within
the appropriate statutory ranges. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32, 12.33. In
accordance with the jury verdicts, the trial court sentenced Valera.
The judgments for both counts contained clerical error by reciting that Valera
was to serve his sentences in a state jail facility. Correcting this clerical error, the trial
court signed a judgment nunc pro tunc stating that Valera was to serve his sentences
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
4
Discussion
The record shows no arguable point to pursue.
On appeal, Valera’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Although Valera was given an
opportunity to file a response, he filed none. The State responded by letter and agreed
with Valera’s counsel that the appeal was frivolous.
Anders requires that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record
showing why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Cf. id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400.
Because counsel’s Anders brief provides only conclusions, see Thomas v. State, No. 02-
19-00056-CR, 2020 WL 938184, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 27, 2020, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), counsel’s motion and brief do not
strictly follow the requirement of evaluating the record and explaining why an appeal
would be frivolous.
1 But because appellate counsel was also Valera’s trial counsel, the
record as a whole shows that counsel had a thorough and accurate knowledge of the
offenses charged, the trial, the punishments assessed, and the absence of arguable
error.
1
In addition, the brief twice describes Count 1 as an assault family violence with
strangulation without mentioning the prior-conviction allegation, meaning that the
offense would have been a third-degree felony. In fact, it was a second-degree felony.
Compare Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B), with id. § 22.01(b-3). The brief also
omits any mention of the punishment Valera received on Count 2.
5
When appointed counsel files an Anders motion and brief, we must
independently examine the entire record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346,
351 (1988). Our independent review of the record confirms counsel’s conclusions, but
we remind counsel that an Anders brief should explain how he arrived at concluding
that the appeal had no arguable points. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45, 87 S. Ct. at
1400.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined
that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record
that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006). Because there are no arguable issues in the record, ordering counsel to
file another, more thorough brief or abating the appeal for the appointment of new
appellate counsel would result in a waste of resources for all involved. See Stafford,
813 S.W.2d at 510 & n.2, 511.
Outcome: Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgments on Counts 1 and 2, as corrected by the trial court’s judgment nunc pro
tunc.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: