Luis Armando Cruz v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided January 31, 2013·No. 01-11-00726-CR·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 31, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-11-00726-CR ——————————— LUIS ARMANDO CRUZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1273372

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Luis Armando Cruz, pleaded guilty before a jury to the offense of

aggravated robbery and pleaded “true” to a felony enhancement. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(3)(A) (West 2011). The jury found appellant guilty, found the enhancement true, and assessed punishment at confinement for 75 years.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

that, therefore, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous

appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an

appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is

to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to

assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the

request to withdraw is well-founded. Id.

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record. See id. Counsel discusses the evidence adduced, supplies

us with references to the record, and provides us with citation to legal authorities.

See id. at 411; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to

advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744,

2 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d

153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant

and informed him of his right to examine the record and to file a response. See

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has

not filed a pro se response. See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting 30-day period for

response). The State waived its opportunity to file an appellee’s brief.

We have independently reviewed the record, and we conclude that no

reversible error exists, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the

appeal is frivolous. See id. at 407 n.12 (explaining that appeal is frivolous when it

does not present argument that could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that

reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). Although we may issue an

opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do

so. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). An

appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

3 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw1 and affirm the trial court’s

judgment. Attorney Allen C. Isbell must immediately send the notice required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 4

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luis Armando Cruz v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Luis Armando Cruz v. State (Luis Armando Cruz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Mitchell v. State
193 S.W.3d 153 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)