eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-06

Elton Zalos Ortiz v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00411-CR
ELTON ZALOS ORTIZ                                                   APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Elton Zalos Ortiz appeals from the trial court’s order denying his
motion for post-conviction DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
64.01 (West Supp. 2010). Ortiz’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel
avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief.
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967). This court informed
Ortiz that he may file a pro se brief, but he has not done so. The State declined
to submit a brief in response to the Anders brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on
the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this
court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See
Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State,
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–
83,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State,
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
2
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER, J; and DIXON W. HOLMAN (Senior
Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 2, 2011
3