Court Opinion

ID: 9906513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 11:23:43.867623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:35.094442
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
       ___________________________

            No. 02-23-00031-CR
       ___________________________

          DAVID RIOS, Appellant

                      V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS

    On Appeal from the 371st District Court
           Tarrant County, Texas
         Trial Court No. 1672755D

 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant David Rios was charged with two counts of sexual assault and

pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense (attempted sexual assault) in exchange for a

waiver of his indictment’s second count and seven years’ deferred adjudication

community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01, 22.011. Not quite a year

later, the State sought to proceed to adjudication, listing seven alleged violations of

the terms of Rios’s community supervision. Rios pleaded “not true” to the State’s

allegations, and the trial court found true all but ground 7(a) and sentenced him to

seven years’ confinement.

      Rios’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967),

representing that Rios “has no nonfrivolous grounds upon which to appeal” and that

“there is no merit to the appeal in this cause.” In compliance with Kelly v. State,

counsel provided Rios with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw and informed

him of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek

discretionary review pro se should this court deny relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

      Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

(orig. proceeding). Rios was given the opportunity to file a pro se response to the

                                           2
Anders brief but filed nothing. The State did not file a brief but noted in a letter that it

agreed with Rios’s appointed counsel that there were no meritorious grounds for

appeal. Both Rios’s appointed counsel and the State agree that the judgment should

be modified to reflect that Rios pleaded “not true.”

       Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must

independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

       We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. Except for minor

corrections to the judgment, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v.

State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

       The trial court’s judgment states that Rios pleaded “true,” but the record

reflects that he pleaded “not true.” We correct the judgment to reflect that Rios

pleaded “not true.” See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2005, no pet.). Further, although the trial court’s judgment states that the trial court

found allegations 1–6 and 7(a) true, the record reflects that the trial court found

allegations 1–6, 7(b), and 7(c)—but not 7(a)—true. Accordingly, we likewise correct

                                             3
this portion of the judgment. See id. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

affirm the trial court’s judgment as corrected.

                                                  /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

                                                  Bonnie Sudderth
                                                  Chief Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: November 30, 2023

                                            4