Court Opinion

ID: 2866572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 01:39:53.501118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:29.815680
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00093-CR

Juan Ortiz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3013545, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Juan Ortiz guilty of burglary of a habitation.  Tex. Pen. Code
Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003).  The jury assessed punishment, enhanced by previous felony convictions,
at imprisonment for ninety-nine years and a $10,000 fine.  
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced.  See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised
of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous
and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  Counsel's
motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

				__________________________________________
				Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed:   August 14, 2003
Do Not Publish