Ricardo Palos v. The State of Texas Appeal from 211th District Court of Denton County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00337-CR RICARDO PALOS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. F16-1631-431 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Appellant Ricardo Palos appeals his conviction for felony assault family violence, enhanced by a prior assault conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West Supp. 2017). Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. Id. Appellant had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but has not done so; the State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 2 During these proceedings, Appellant filed a “Motion For Out of Time Appeal.” Appellant was notified by his attorney and by a letter from this court of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to the Anders brief pointing out any alleged errors. He has not done so. We therefore deny his motion. 2 /s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH CHIEF JUSTICE PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; KERR and PITTMAN, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 30, 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.
