COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00196-CR
NO. 02-14-00197-CR
NO. 02-14-00198-CR
JESSE RIOJAS BELTRAN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. CR13-0658, CR13-0659, CR13-0660
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Jesse Riojas Beltran appeals his convictions for evading arrest
with a vehicle in cause number 2-14-00196-CR and assault on a public servant in
cause numbers 2-14-00197-CR and 2-14-00198-CR. See Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2014), § 38.04 (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). Beltran’s
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and
a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Beltran had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but
did not do so. The State did not file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the 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.). Only then may
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–
83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have
determined that the trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 2-14-00197-CR and
2-14-00198-CR require modification to reflect the correct pleas to the
enhancement allegations and the trial court’s enhancement findings. These two
judgments currently reflect “NA” as to the pleas to the first and second
enhancement paragraphs and the findings on those paragraphs, but as reflected
in the judgment in cause number 2-14-00196-CR and the record of the hearing
on all three causes, Beltran pleaded “true” to both enhancement allegations, and
the trial court found both allegations “true.” Further, the sentences assessed in
2
both of these cause numbers imply that the trial court found both allegations to
be true. See Torres v. State, 391 S.W.3d 179, 183–85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2012, pet. ref’d). Therefore, we modify these two judgments to reflect that
Beltran pleaded “true” to both enhancement allegations and that the trial court
found both to be true. See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2005, no pet.) (en banc).
Except for these two necessary modifications to the judgments in cause
numbers 2-14-00197-CR and 2-14-00198-CR, we agree with counsel that all
three appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing else in the
record that might arguably support them. 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). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
affirm the trial court’s judgment in cause number 2-14-00196-CR, and affirm the
trial court’s judgments as modified in cause numbers 2-14-00197-CR and 2-14-
00198-CR.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
BONNIE SUDDERTH
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 6, 2015
3