Fortino Puerta v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 11-23-00008-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed May 9, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00008-CR __________

FORTINO PUERTA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR15803

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Fortino Puerta, entered an open plea of guilty to one count of sexual assault of a child, a second-degree felony offense (Count One), and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, both first-degree felony offenses (Counts Two and Three). See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2), (f) (West Supp. 2023) § 22.021(a)(2)(B), (e) (West 2019). The State introduced, and the trial court admitted, Appellant’s stipulation of evidence as to each count. Following Appellant’s guilty plea, the trial court held a punishment hearing. The hearing included testimony from an investigator, the victim, and Appellant’s brother. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty years for Count One and sixty years each for Counts Two and Three and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following

2 the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

May 9, 2024 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.