Opinion issued December 20, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-06-00705-CR

NO. 01-06-00706-CR

NO. 01-06-00707-CR

__________

LEONARDO MENDOZA QUINONEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1042909, 1042910, 1042911

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          A jury found appellant, Leonardo Mendoza Quinonez, guilty of three separate offenses of aggravated assault of a child and assessed his punishment at confinement for sixty years for each offense. The trial court ordered that the sentences run consecutively.

          Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 744 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has filed a pro se response, contending in four points of error that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his convictions, the trial court “erred in allowing the testimony of an expert witness who elicited disclosure from complainant through leading questions in violation of appellant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process,” and the trial court erred “in admitting appellant’s involuntary written statement taken in violation of [article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by a ‘de facto police officer.’”  

          Having reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se reponse, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

          We affirm the judgments of the trial court. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).  

                                                                                                                           Terry Jennings

                                                                        Justice

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Keyes.

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).