## 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 114T H

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 1 37 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
We affirm.

B ACKGROUND 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 righ t 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 fir st 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 c ourt found each of the State’s allegations2

“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.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA 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
, Ga inous , 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. 1 See Ander s , 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 foun d no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION 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 af firmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A P P

. 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
discre tionary 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 recei ved no pro se brief.3

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 (a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 (a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requireme nts 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 judgmen t
of the court below be in all things affirmed
, a nd 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.