COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Angel Luis Martinez, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00108-CR

Trial court case number: 70443

Trial court: 264th District Court of Bell County

This case was previously set for submission on October 14, 2014, without 

oral argument. A jury convicted appellant Angel Luis Martinez, Jr. of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment of 50 years in prison. His courtappointed appellate attorney filed a brief that included a “professional evaluation 

of the record” and raised one argument for consideration by the court of appeals. 

The sole argument raised was that the redaction of the name of the jury foreman on 

the verdict sheets was contrary to federal and state constitutional requirements that 

courts be open. 

The reporter’s record in this case indicates that the jury’s verdict was 

tendered in writing in open court, and that it was unanimous. The names of the 

jurors also appear in the reporter’s record. The appellant’s brief does not explain 

how or why the redaction of the jury foreman’s name harmed Martinez, nor does 

the brief assert that there was any error in the judgment itself or irregularity in the 

jury proceedings that could be determined only by obtaining discovery from the 

unnamed jury foreman. The appellant’s brief does not seek reversal of Martinez’s 

conviction or any modification of the judgment. Indeed, the prayer for relief in the 

brief actually requests affirmance of Martinez’s conviction and 50-year prison 

sentence: “Appellant Angel Luis Martinez, Jr. prays that this Court modify the 

verdict forms as requested herein, and then affirm the judgment; and for any and all 

other relief to which Martinez may be entitled.” The brief did not raise arguable 
grounds for review because it did not identify any error upon which reversal or 

modification of the judgment potentially could have been based. See, e.g., Bledsoe 

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

court determines whether appeal is wholly frivolous by reviewing the record to 

determine if any reversible error is shown) (citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967)).

If a conscientious examination of the record reveals no arguable grounds for 

appeal, the appointed attorney should file a motion to withdraw, accompanied by 

an Anders brief, which informs the appellate court that he “has made a thorough 

review of the record and the applicable law, but has nonetheless concluded that 

there is no plausible basis for appeal.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406-07

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appointed counsel must also (1) notify his client of the 

motion to withdraw and provide him a copy of both the motion and the Anders

brief, (2) inform the client of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro 

se response, (3) inform the client of his right to seek discretionary review if the 

court of appeals determines that his appeal is frivolous, and (4) “take concrete 

measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to 

review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes.” Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

The brief in this case did not raise any arguable grounds for reversal on 

appeal, and indeed it prayed for affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. 

Appellant’s counsel did not move to withdraw, did not file an Anders brief, and 

made no other record indicating whether Martinez was appropriately advised of 

and assisted with his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se 

response. See id.

Accordingly, this case is removed from the October 14, 2014 submission

docket. Appellant’s counsel is ordered to file with this court either an amended 

brief that raises an arguable ground for reversal or a motion to withdraw 

accompanied by an Anders brief that complies with the minimum requirements as 

established by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Kelly. See id.; see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 6.5 (“Withdrawal”). The amended brief or motion to withdraw and 

accompanying Anders brief is due 14 days from the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Justice Massengale, Acting Individually 

Date: October 9, 2014