Juan Deltoro v. State ( 2021 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-19-00507-CR
Juan Deltoro, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-DC-18-204174, THE HONORABLE BRAD URRUTIA, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Juan Deltoro was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault causing
serious bodily injury. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(1). He elected to have the trial court
decide his punishment, see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(2)(b), and the trial judge, after
finding the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment to be true, sentenced appellant to
confinement for twenty-eight years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice pursuant to the
habitual offender punishment provision of the Penal Code. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(d).
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by
a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see
also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court
that she sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine
the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in
obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see
also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
Appellant requested access to the appellate record, and, pursuant to this Court’s
order, the clerk of the trial court provided written verification to this Court that the record was
provided to appellant. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Appellant requested an extension of time
to file a response, which this Court granted, and appellant filed a pro se response. However,
appellant did not identify any arguable grounds for appeal in his responses.1
We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of
the trial proceedings below, appellate counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response—and find
no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record
presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.
1 In his response, appellant asserts that portions of the clerk’s record and reporter’s
record have been omitted; contends that several State’s witnesses provided “false testimony”;
complains about the admission of prejudicial autopsy photographs of the victim; argues that his
appointed attorneys, who represented him prior to his retained trial counsel, rendered ineffective
assistance by not filing motions; and raises a claim of a double-jeopardy violation.
2
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Affirmed
Filed: January 8, 2021
Do Not Publish
3