NO. 12-14-00072-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SIR ORTIZ, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Sir Ortiz appeals his conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity. Appellant’s 

counsel filed a brief asserting compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 

We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

A Smith County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant for the offense of 

engaging in organized criminal activity and alleged that Appellant was a repeat offender. 

Appellant waived his right to jury trial and pleaded “guilty” to the offense and “true” to the 

enhancement paragraph. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. 

The State filed its first application to proceed to final adjudication on November 18, 

2013. Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s allegations, but the trial court denied the State’s 

application and ordered that Appellant’s community supervision be continued. On February 20,

2014, the State filed its second application to proceed to final adjudication. Appellant pleaded 

“true” to six of the eight allegations contained in the State’s application. At the conclusion of the 

hearing on the State’s second application, the trial court found each of the State’s allegations 
2

“true,” adjudicated Appellant “guilty” of engaging in organized criminal activity, and assessed 

punishment at thirty years of imprisonment with a $5,000 fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel 

states that he has reviewed the appellate record and that he is unable to find any reversible error 

or jurisdictional defects. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the 

procedural history of the case and further states why counsel is unable to present any arguable 

issues for appeal.1See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138; 

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that 

the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five 

days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise 

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the 

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

discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the date of this 

court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See 

 

1 Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant 

was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received 

no pro se brief. 
3

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered April 8, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 8, 2015

NO. 12-14-00072-CR

SIR ORTIZ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0302-13)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.