1

NO. 12-09-00349-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CARLOS WAYNE TORREZ, ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Carlos Wayne Torrez appeals his conviction for assault. Appellant’s counsel has 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 dismiss the 

appeal.

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of assault.1 As charged, the offense was a third 

degree felony because the grand jury alleged that Appellant knew the victim of the assault was a 

public servant and that the assault occurred while the public servant was discharging an official 

duty.2 The grand jury also alleged that Appellant had twice before been convicted of a felony, that 

both felony convictions were final before he committed this felony, and that one of the prior felony 

convictions was final before the commission of the other prior felony. This enhancement, if 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009).

2

See id.
2

found to be true, would enhance the sentencing range to a maximum of life in prison and a 

minimum of imprisonment for twenty–five years.3

As part of a plea agreement, Appellant agreed to plead guilty as charged, to admit that the 

enhancement paragraphs were true, and to admit that he was guilty of assaulting another public 

servant. The State agreed not to seek to cumulate this sentence with that of another case for which 

he had already been sentenced to prison and not to seek a conviction on the other assault charge.4

The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea of guilty and his plea of true to the sentencing 

enhancements. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of life in 

prison. 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 diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the 

facts of this case. 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 that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for 

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 

109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for 

reversible error and have found none.

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). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we 

dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of these 

four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the 

attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be 

 

3

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2009). 

4 The State agreed to allow Appellant’s admission of the other criminal charge to be taken into consideration 

in the sentence to be assessed in this case. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.45 (Vernon 2003). 
3

plausible grounds for appeal.”).

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 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 he must file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 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 that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 

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

Opinion delivered July 21, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)