Armando Onsurez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2010 » Armando Onsurez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 7th District Court of Smith County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-09-00439-CR

Case Date: 09/01/2010

Plaintiff: Frank Guerra Delapaz

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 70th District Court of Ector County

Preview:NO. 12-09-00439-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
ARMANDO ONSUREZ, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

' ' '

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Armando Onsurez appeals his conviction for assault on a public servant, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty-five years. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with assault on a public servant and pleaded "guilty." The indictment further alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of two felonies. Appellant pleaded "true" to these enhancement allegations. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. At the conclusion of the trial on punishment, the trial court found Appellant "guilty" as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for thirty-five years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant=s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well

acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a

chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. CONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. dismissed.2 Opinion delivered September 1, 2010.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

Having done so and finding no reversible error,

Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

Counsel for Appellant had certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
2

1

2

Download 9488.pdf