Rolando Cruz v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-25-00299-CR

___________________________

ROLANDO CRUZ, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 485th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1825360

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rolando Cruz appeals his conviction for failing to comply with the requirements of Transportation Code Section 550.021 following a vehicle collision resulting in death, a second-degree-felony offense. See Tex. Transp. Code § 550.021(a), (c)(1)(A). Cruz entered a guilty plea without the benefit of either a charge bargain or a sentencing bargain and elected to have his punishment assessed by the trial judge. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Cruz to 15 years’ incarceration. This appeal followed.

After determining that Cruz’s appeal was frivolous, his court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The attorney’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, Cruz’s attorney has certified that he provided Cruz with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw, informed him of his right to file a pro se response and to receive a free copy of the appellate record, provided him with a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only his signature, and informed him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals if he does not receive relief from this court. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Cruz an opportunity to file a pro se

3

response, but he has not done so. In lieu of a brief, the State filed a letter stating that it agreed with appellate counsel’s determination that the appeal was wholly frivolous.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

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

Delivered: May 7, 2026