ROBERTO ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRMED; Opinion issued October 2, 2006
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-05-00941-CR
............................
ROBERTO ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F03-58442-JK
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and Richter
 
        A jury convicted Roberto Ortiz Rodriguez of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. The judge sentenced appellant to thirty years' imprisonment.
        Appellant's attorney filed a brief concluding the appeal is 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, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a response.
        We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court's judgment incorrectly identifies appellant's counsel. The judgment lists Larry Mitchell as the attorney for the defendant, but the record shows Jon Eric Smenner was appellant's attorney. We modify the trial court's judgment to show Jon Eric Smenner as counsel for defendant. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
050941F.U05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.