Winston Ruiz v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00439-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00439-CR __________________

WINSTON RUIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-11-16435-CR _______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Winston Ruiz appeals his conviction for sexual assault, a second-degree felony.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(1). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial

court appointed an attorney to represent Ruiz in his appeal. The attorney discharged

his responsibilities to Ruiz by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the brief, Ruiz’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors

to be addressed in Ruiz’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.

1 App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the

record. In the brief, Ruiz’s attorney explains why, under the record in Ruiz’s case,

no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Id. Ruiz’s attorney also

represented that he sent Ruiz a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was

filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Ruiz, by letter, that he could

file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before June 2, 2025. Ruiz did not

file a response.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently

examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the

defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no

arguable grounds to support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. Id. at

826. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney

to re-brief the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991).

2 The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 1

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 23, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1Ruiz may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3