From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruiz v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jan 9, 2008
Nos. 03-07-00042-CR, 03-07-00043-CR, 03-07-00044-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 03-07-00042-CR, 03-07-00043-CR, 03-07-00044-CR

Filed: January 9, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the District Court of Tom Green County, 51st Judicial District Nos. A-06-0707-S, A-06-0708-S b-04-1112-S Honorable Thomas J. Gossett, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.

Before Justices PATTERSON, PURYEAR and PEMBERTON.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


A jury found appellant Joe (Jose) Louis Ruiz guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (cause number A-06-0707-S) and assault on a family member, subsequent offense (cause number A-06-0708-S). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2), § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2007). The trial court assessed punishment for the aggravated assault at imprisonment for twenty years and for the family assault at imprisonment for seven years. In addition, the court adjudicated appellant guilty of burglary of a building, an offense to which appellant had previously pleaded guilty and for which he had been placed on deferred adjudication supervision (cause number B-04-1112-S). See id. § 30.02 (West 2003). The court assessed punishment for the burglary at 730 days in state jail. Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are 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 records 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). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. We have reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.


Summaries of

Ruiz v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin
Jan 9, 2008
Nos. 03-07-00042-CR, 03-07-00043-CR, 03-07-00044-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2008)
Case details for

Ruiz v. State

Case Details

Full title:Joe Louis Ruiz, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, Jose Louis…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin

Date published: Jan 9, 2008

Citations

Nos. 03-07-00042-CR, 03-07-00043-CR, 03-07-00044-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2008)