From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jaramillo v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 31, 2024
No. 04-23-00819-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)

Opinion

04-23-00819-CR

07-31-2024

Eloy JARAMILLO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee


Do Not Publish

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-11-00142-CRK Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA, JUSTICE

Appellant Eloy Jaramillo pleaded guilty to the offense of assault family violence, with a prior conviction of assault family violence, and true to one enhancement paragraph. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(A). The trial court found Jaramillo guilty and assessed punishment at sixteen years' imprisonment and $310.00 in court costs. See id. §§ 12.33(a), 12.42(a). Jaramillo timely appealed.

Jaramillo's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and brief concluding this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Jaramillo and informed him of his rights to review the record and to file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. Jaramillo requested the record, which the trial court clerk provided, and filed a pro se brief. The State also filed a brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, counsel's brief, Jaramillo's pro se brief, and the State's brief. We conclude the record presents no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is frivolous. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Jaramillo's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Jaramillo wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.


Summaries of

Jaramillo v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jul 31, 2024
No. 04-23-00819-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)
Case details for

Jaramillo v. State

Case Details

Full title:Eloy JARAMILLO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jul 31, 2024

Citations

No. 04-23-00819-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2024)