Julio Torres Cortez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 14, 2010
• Docket: 14-09-00150-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00149-CR

NO. 14-09-00150-CR

JULIO TORRES CORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 715518 & 715520

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Julio Torres Cortez was convicted for twice committing the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  His convictions were affirmed in 1999.  See Cortez v. State, 14-97-00907-CR, 1999 WL 394809 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 17, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication) and Cortez v. State, 14-96-01196-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 27, 1999, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).  On January 10, 2007, appellant filed a pro se motion for post-conviction DNA testing in  each case.  On December 12, 2008, the trial court denied appellant’s motions for DNA testing. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991).  As of this date, no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Frost, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).