Victor Antonio Ruiz v. State
This text of Victor Antonio Ruiz v. State (Victor Antonio Ruiz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00017-CR
VICTOR ANTONIO RUIZ, Appellant v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-813-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Victor Ruiz entered an open guilty plea to the felony offense of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, a jury assessed a twenty-year prison sentence and a
$10,000 fine. Ruiz appealed.
Ruiz’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his
opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18
L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Ruiz did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy
v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440
(1988).
We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find
this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Ruiz a
copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Ruiz’s last known
address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Ruiz of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon
counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by “a letter [to
this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012 Do not publish [CR25]
Ruiz v. State Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Victor Antonio Ruiz v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-antonio-ruiz-v-state-texapp-2012.