TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00441-CR

Ron Guzman, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR-06-137-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In July 2006, Appellant Ron Guzman pleaded guilty of one count of indecency with a child and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.11, 22.021. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-years’ imprisonment for the indecency offense and forty-years’ imprisonment for each aggravated sexual assault offense to run concurrently pursuant to a plea agreement. See id. §§ 12.32, 12.33. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his subsequent motion for forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01 (explaining when convicted person may file motion requesting testing of DNA evidence), .03 (listing requirements for convicting court to order DNA testing).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and presents no arguably meritorious issues. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant filed a pro se response on July 9, 2024.

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the Chapter 64 proceedings, appellate counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and that the appeal is frivolous.

We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: August 23, 2024 Do Not Publish