Court Opinion

ID: 9890766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 11:08:36.100415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:10.045559
License: Public Domain

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

          No. 02-22-00273-CR
     ___________________________

   OSCAR ORTIZ RIVERA, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 1666649D

  Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      By indictment, the State charged Appellant Oscar Ortiz Rivera1 with one count

of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2). Upon his plea of not guilty, Ortiz Rivera’s case was tried to

a jury, who found Ortiz Rivera guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed his

punishment at three years’ imprisonment.        See id. § 12.33 (punishment range for

second-degree felony). The trial court sentenced Ortiz Rivera accordingly.

      After determining that Ortiz Rivera’s appeal was frivolous, Ortiz Rivera’s

court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in

support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v.

California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally,

in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Ortiz Rivera with copies of the

brief and motion to withdraw; he informed Ortiz Rivera of his right to file a pro se

response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this

court declare his appeal frivolous; and he sent Ortiz Rivera a form motion for pro se

      1
        The appellant’s name is spelled multiple different ways throughout the record.
The indictment and judgment identify him as “OSCAR ORTIZRIVERA.”
Throughout the reporter’s record, his surname is transcribed as “Ortiz Rivera.” In
filings with this court, his appellate counsel identifies him as “Oscar Ortiz-Rivera.”
Based on our comprehensive review of the record, we believe “Ortiz Rivera” to be
the correct spelling.

                                            2
access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Ortiz

Rivera had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do

so. The State has not filed a response.

      We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that this appeal is wholly 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). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Brian Walker

                                                     Brian Walker
                                                     Justice

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

Delivered: October 12, 2023

                                          3