Rogerio Martinez, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » Rogerio Martinez, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 410th District Court of Montgomery County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-03-00128-CR

Case Date: 12/08/2004

Plaintiff: James Chambers

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County

Preview:Rogerio Martinez, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 410th District Court of Montgomery County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-03-00128-CR
Rogerio Martinez, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 410th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Court # 02-08-05359CR
MEMORANDUM Opinion
Rogerio Martinez, Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 29.03 (Vernon 2003), 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). There was a plea
agreement that his sentence would not exceed fifteen years confinement. The court sentenced him to twelve years and
granted him the right to prosecute an appeal. Martinez s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. Martinez filed a pro
se response contending: (1) he accepted the plea bargain agreement due to the victim s use of the Fifth Amendment;
and (2) because he has no memory of the incident, the crime could not have been aggravated. The State waived its
right to file a brief.
Because Martinez s contentions and our independent review of the record reveal no issues of arguable merit, we will
affirm the judgment.
Martinez s Contentions
Martinez argues that he accepted the plea bargain because of the victim s improper use of the Fifth Amendment.
Martinez refers to the victim s responses to two questions during the punishment phase about whether he was aware
that Martinez had been previously committed to a mental institution. Because those responses occurred during the
punishment phase, it is difficult to imagine how they could have influenced the plea Martinez had already made.
Martinez argues that the crime could not have been aggravated because he was in an altered state of mind and now has
no memory of the incident. However, Martinez pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and aggravated assault with a
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6166.html[8/20/2013 7:20:10 PM]

deadly weapon. Thus, the record does not support his issue.
We find that Martinez has presented no issue of arguable merit based on the current state of the record.
Independent Review
We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal.
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We determine there are none. The indictment
invoked the district court s jurisdiction, and the court assessed punishment within the statutory range of punishment for
the offenses.
CONCLUSION
Finding no issue of arguable merit, we affirm the judgment.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 8, 2004
Do not publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6166.html[8/20/2013 7:20:10 PM]

Download 6166.pdf