Court Opinion

ID: 9917003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 09:11:45.224072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:44.697491
License: Public Domain

In The
                                Court of Appeals
                       Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                        No. 07-23-00148-CR

                       ROBERT MILES RITTERPUSCH, APPELLANT

                                                   V.

                              THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                             On Appeal from the 51st District Court
                                     Sterling County, Texas1
                    Trial Court No. 984, Honorable Carmen Dusek, Presiding

                                          January 8, 2024
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

       Subject to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant, Robert Miles Ritterpusch, pleaded

guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery with an affirmative finding that he used or

exhibited a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense.2 In accordance with the

plea bargain, the trial court deferred adjudication of Appellant’s guilt, placed him on

       1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by docket equalization

order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
       2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2).
community supervision for a period of ten years, and ordered that he was jointly and

severally liable with co-defendants for restitution in the amount of $482.41. The judgment

also assessed costs, including court-appointed attorney’s fees, against Appellant.

Appellant did not appeal from this judgment.               The State filed a motion to revoke

community supervision.3 Appellant signed a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant

admitted committing eighteen of the twenty-six violations alleged by the State. The trial

court held a hearing on the State’s motion, after which the trial court entered judgment

adjudicating Appellant guilty of the original aggravated robbery charge. The trial court

sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. From this judgment, Appellant timely appealed.

In presenting this appeal, counsel for Appellant has filed an Anders4 brief in support of a

motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the

record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal

can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities,

there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. In a letter to Appellant, counsel

notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the Anders brief and a

motion to request the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se

response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying

       3 The State amended its motion to add additional alleged violations on three occasions.

       4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

                                                   2
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an

Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se

response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has

not filed a brief on the merits.

        By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal.

        Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.5

                                                                   Judy C. Parker
                                                                      Justice

Do not publish.

        5 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.

                                                      3