Cristian Carlos Tirado v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed September 21, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01157-CR CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright A jury convicted Cristian Carlos Tirado for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes 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, 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 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 recites the punishment was assessed by the jury. The record, however, shows appellant elected to have the trial court assess the punishment. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of the judgment entitled “punishment assessed by” to show “Court.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 171157F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant No. 05-17-01157-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Myers and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Punishment Assessed by” is modified to show “Court.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment Judgment entered September 21, 2018. –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.
