John Charles Ruport v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 26th District Court of Williamson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00319-CR John Charles Ruport, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 10-998-K26, HONORABLE LLOYD DOUGLAS SHAVER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant John Charles Ruport guilty of eight counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and seven counts of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยงยง 21.11(a)(1), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment for each count of aggravated sexual assault and twenty years imprisonment for each count of indecency with a child by contact. 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, 86 87 (1988). Appellant received a copy of counsel s brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have received a pro se brief from the appellant. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel s brief and appellant s pro se brief, 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. The points of error raised in appellant s pro se brief have no arguable merit. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. Counsel s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Diane M. Henson, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Henson, and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: November 16, 2012 Do Not Publish 2
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.
