Antonio Ortega Pajes v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2007
• Docket: 12-06-00385-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                NO. 12-06-00385-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANTONIO ORTEGA PAJES,         §                      APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Antonio Ortega Pajes appeals his conviction for forgery.  He entered an open plea of guilty. The trial court found him guilty, found the two enhancement paragraphs to be true, and sentenced him  to eighteen years of confinement.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.¹  We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered August 30, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.