NO. 07-11-00074-CR; 07-11-00075-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JANUARY 5, 2012
JOSE ANGEL MARTINEZ, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5 OF DALLAS COUNTY;
NOS. F98-29599-L, F01-32449-K; HONORABLE CARTER THOMPSON, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jose Angel Martinez, appeals his adjudication of guilty to the offense
of aggravated assault1 and finding of guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault
of a child.2 The trial court sentenced appellant, pursuant to a plea of true to the motion
to adjudicate on the aggravated assault and plea of guilty to the indictment on the
aggravated sexual assault of a child, to a term of confinement of 18 years in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each of case, with
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iii) (West Supp. 2011).
all confinement to be served concurrently. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court
in each case.
Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling
authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has
certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to
withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this
matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has
also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a
response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support
an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with
counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
2
Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s
judgment is affirmed.3
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3