Raul Anthony Ortiz v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 04-22-00509-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00509-CR

Raul Anthony ORTIZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-04-088-CRW Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2023

AFFIRMED

Raul Anthony Ortiz was indicted for possession of a controlled substance in penalty group

1, for an amount of 1 gram or more but less than 4 grams. Ortiz entered a plea bargain with the

State in which he pled guilty and received ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

probated for a term of four years and a fine of $1,500. As part of the deal, Ortiz agreed to terms

and conditions of community supervision, including fees and court costs.

The State eventually filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. The trial court

held an evidentiary hearing. The motion alleged violations of eight conditions; Ortiz pled “true” 04-22-00509-CR

to violating three conditions. After hearing testimony from two witnesses, the trial court found

Ortiz had violated the terms of probation, adjudicated Ortiz guilty, revoked probation, and

sentenced Ortiz to ten years confinement. This appeal followed.

Ortiz’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief, which included a request to

withdraw, in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates

a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Ortiz and informed him

of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). This court notified Ortiz of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Ortiz did not file a pro

se brief. See also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.)

(per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for

appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the request to withdraw filed by appointed

counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924

S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ortiz wish to seek further review of this

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition

for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition

-2- 04-22-00509-CR

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-