NUMBER 13-23-00327-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

JESUS J. ORTEGA A/K/A

J. JESUS ORTEGA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 216TH DISTRICT COURT

OF GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

Appellant Jesus J. Ortega a/k/a J. Jesus Ortega was convicted of continuous 

sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief 

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 
2

738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. ANDERS BRIEF1

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record 

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, 

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds 

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set 

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court 

in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion 

to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant 

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio

pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 73.001.
3

of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses, 

and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) 

provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only

requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. 

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408–09.

Appellant filed a pro se response. When appellate counsel files an Anders brief 

and the appellant independently files a pro se response, the court of appeals has two 

choices: 

[i]t may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, 

it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the 

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the 

issues.

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (internal citations 

omitted). We are “not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response.” Id. at 827. Rather, we must merely determine if there are any 

arguable grounds for appeal. Id. If we determine there are such arguable grounds, we 

must remand for appointment of new counsel. Id. Reviewing the merits raised in a pro se 

response would deprive an appellant of the meaningful assistance of counsel. Id.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 
4

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found 

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28 

(“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.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five 

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion 

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for 

discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case 

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

review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion 

for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. 

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
5

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

3

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed on the

28th day of March, 2024.

3 Appellant’s pending motions for appointment of counsel are hereby denied.