From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nortrick v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 7, 2005
Nos. 05-03-01436-CR, 05-03-01437-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 7, 2005)

Opinion

Nos. 05-03-01436-CR, 05-03-01437-CR

Opinion Filed July 7, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-01236-MW, F03-63395-JW. Abated.

Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.


OPINION


Eugene Robert Van Nortrick appeals two convictions for aggravated sexual assault. Before a jury, appellant entered guilty pleas to the offenses. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment in each case at ninety-nine years confinement and a $2,500 fine. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous, without merit, and there are no arguable grounds to advance. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and we advised him of his right to respond. Appellant did not file a pro se response. After conducting our Anders review, we conclude an arguable issue exists regarding the trial court's admonishments to appellant. The record shows the trial court orally admonished appellant of the punishment range for the offenses but it did not orally admonish him that he could be deported if he was not a citizen. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 26.13(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). The omission of an oral admonishment is significant because the record does not contain a written deportation admonishment and it is silent regarding appellant's citizenship. See Hwang v. State, 130 S.W.3d 496, 499-501 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, pet. ref'd). Because the record does not show either that appellant was admonished about the deportation consequences of his plea or that he is a U.S. citizen, we cannot agree with counsel's determination that these appeals are wholly frivolous. See Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 638-39 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Hwang, 130 S.W.3d at 499-501. We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We abate the appeals and remand them to the trial court. We order the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel to represent appellant, investigate the record, and file a brief on the merits. See id. In the brief, counsel should discuss the sufficiency of the trial court's admonishments and any other grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See id. We further order the trial court to inform this Court in writing of the identity of appellate counsel and the date counsel is appointed. Because of the foregoing, we remove these causes from the submission docket.


Summaries of

Nortrick v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jul 7, 2005
Nos. 05-03-01436-CR, 05-03-01437-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 7, 2005)
Case details for

Nortrick v. State

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE ROBERT VAN NORTRICK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jul 7, 2005

Citations

Nos. 05-03-01436-CR, 05-03-01437-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 7, 2005)