Victor Santana v. The State of Texas Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Motion Granted; Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00130-CR VICTOR SANTANA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1312173 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault. On January 30, 2014, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for forty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has complied with the Anders procedures set out in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant, and appellant was advised of the deadline to file any pro se response to counsel’s brief. As of this date, more than thirty days have passed since the deadline and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The judgment reflects that appellant was convicted of “aggravated assaultfamily member.” The State abandoned the language in the indictment alleging that the aggravated assault was against a family member. The jury was not asked to find in the charge, and did not find, that the complainant was a member of appellant’s family. Accordingly, we reform the trial court’s judgment to delete “family member” from the offense so that the judgment reflects appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court has authority to reform a judgment to “speak the truth”). In an appeal in which counsel has filed an Anders brief, we are not required to abate the appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment 2 may be reformed. See Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, no pet.) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal to correct age of child victim); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal to delete improper condition of parole); see also Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming court of appeals’ judgment, which reformed the judgment of conviction in Anders appeal). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 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.
