Juan Isaias Cortez v. State of TexasAppeal from 106th District Court of Dawson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed May 2, 2013 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00365-CR __________ JUAN ISAIAS CORTEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 106th District Court Dawson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11-7102 MEMORANDUM OPINION Juan Isaias Cortez pleaded guilty in November 2011 to sexual assault. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. The trial court heard the motion to proceed on November 30, 2012. Appellant pleaded not true to all of the alleged violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all of the alleged violations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty of the charged offense, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years and a fine of $1,000. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App. Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ( In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant s right to file a pro se petition 1 By letter, this court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel s brief. 2 for discretionary review under Rule 68. ). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM May 2, 2013 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J. 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.
