Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-04-2021
Case Style:
Celestino Ruiz Jr. v. The State of Texas
Case Number:
01-19-00835-CR
Judge:
Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jack Roady
Rebecca Klaren
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Houston, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented Celestino Ruiz Jr. with a Obstruction or Retaliation charge.
A jury found appellant, Celestino Ruiz, Jr., guilty of the third-degree felony
offense of retaliation. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 36.06(a)(a)(A). Appellant pleaded true
to an enhancement alleging a prior felony conviction, elevating the punishment to
that of a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(a). The jury assessed 2
punishment at six years’ imprisonment, which is within the applicable sentencing
range for a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.33(a). The trial court
certified that this was not a plea-bargain case, and that appellant had the right of
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that,
therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the
record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that he sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant did not file a pro se response.3
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim
raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable
grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a
holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
Outcome: Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: