From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Apr 5, 2017
NO. 09-16-00053-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 5, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 09-16-00053-CR

04-05-2017

RYAN ALAN MARTINEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 14-05-05642-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Ryan Alan Martinez's appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Martinez's online solicitation of a minor conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021(c) (West Supp. 2016). We have reviewed the record, and we agree with Martinez's counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

For convenience, we cite the current Penal Code.

Martinez pled guilty to online solicitation of a minor in an open plea. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Martinez to two years in prison. Subsequently, Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal.

In connection with Martinez's appeal, Martinez's counsel filed a brief presenting counsel's professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Martinez's counsel concludes that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Martinez an opportunity to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Martinez's counsel, we agree with counsel's conclusions that an appeal on the current record would be frivolous. Therefore, we conclude it is not necessary to order that new counsel be appointed to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error exists to support Martinez's appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Martinez may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED.

/s/_________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice Submitted on July 15, 2016
Opinion Delivered April 5, 2017
Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

Martinez v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Apr 5, 2017
NO. 09-16-00053-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 5, 2017)
Case details for

Martinez v. State

Case Details

Full title:RYAN ALAN MARTINEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Apr 5, 2017

Citations

NO. 09-16-00053-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 5, 2017)