Opinion issued April 9, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00503-CR
———————————
OMAR SANTANA ORTIZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 56th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10CR3184
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Omar Santana Ortiz, pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony
offense of intoxicated assault with a vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.07
(West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court assessed appellant’s
punishment at ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) and ordered him to pay restitution. The
trial court suspended sentence of confinement, and placed appellant on community
supervision for a period of ten years.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision. Appellant pleaded not true to all seven alleged violations of the terms
of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found all seven
allegations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced
him to ten years in TDCJ and ordered him to pay restitution. Appellant timely filed
a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
2
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing
court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We
note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Thomas A. Martin must immediately send appellant the
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4