TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00748-CR

Manuel Balderas, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR-20-4558-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

ME MO RAN DU M O PI N I O N

Manuel Balderas was convicted by a jury of three counts of continuous sexual abuse of a child, four counts of sexual assault of a child, two counts of sexual assault, and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.02, 21.11, 22.011. The jury sentenced him to confinement for the counts for terms 7, 10, 15, and 25 years—all to run concurrently.

Balderas’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Balderas’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; 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) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Balderas’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to Balderas; advised Balderas of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. He also provided to Balderas a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only Balderas’s signature and the date and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Balderas has not filed a pro se brief nor a motion for extension of time to file a brief.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.

__________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Justices Triana, Kelly and Theofanis Affirmed Filed: August 8, 2025 Do Not Publish