Ryan Alan Martinez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-16-00053-CR ___________________ RYAN ALAN MARTINEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-05-05642-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Ryan Alan Martinez’s appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Martinez’s online solicitation of a minor conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021(c) (West Supp. 2016).1 We have reviewed the record, and we agree 1 For convenience, we cite the current Penal Code. 1 with Martinez’s counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez pled guilty to online solicitation of a minor in an open plea. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Martinez to two years in prison. Subsequently, Martinez filed a timely notice of appeal. In connection with Martinez’s appeal, Martinez’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Martinez’s counsel concludes that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Martinez an opportunity to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed. After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Martinez’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusions that an appeal on the current record would be frivolous. Therefore, we conclude it is not necessary to order that new counsel be appointed to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our 2 conclusion that no arguable error exists to support Martinez’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 15, 2016 Opinion Delivered April 5, 2017 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 2 Martinez may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
