## NUMBER 13
- 23
- 00 327
- 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

A ppellant 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 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. A NDERS B RIEF 1
Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould 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 T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.3

of h is right s to file pro se response s , to review the record prior to filing those response s , 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 40 8

– 09

. Appellant filed a pro se respons e

. 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 rec ord 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 ar e 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. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 supp ort an appeal

. See Bledso e , 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 requirement s of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
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 h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
41 1 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 discreti onary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk 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 I V

. C ONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment

. 3

JAIME TIJERINA Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the 28th day of March , 202 4

.

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