Carlos Manuel Rivera v. State

Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 27, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00053-CR
No. 05-18-00054-CR
No. 05-18-00055-CR
No. 05-18-00056-CR
CARLOS MANUEL RIVERA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-45821-X, F17-45822-X, F17-45823-X, F17-45824-X
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Appellant Carlos Manuel Rivera waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to manufacture and
delivery of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams,
unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (UPFF), and two forgery of a government instrument
offenses. Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in the drug case and one
enhancement paragraph in the other three cases. After finding appellant guilty and the
enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court sentenced appellant to twenty-five years’
imprisonment in the drug case and five years’ imprisonment in the UPFF and forgery cases.
On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly
frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect,
there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel
delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the
appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeals.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
180053F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CARLOS MANUEL RIVERA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00053-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-45821-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered August 27, 2018.
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CARLOS MANUEL RIVERA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00054-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-45822-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered August 27, 2018.
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CARLOS MANUEL RIVERA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00055-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-45823-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered August 27, 2018.
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CARLOS MANUEL RIVERA, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-18-00056-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F17-45824-X.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered August 27, 2018.
–6–