Omar Benitez Arias v. The State of Texas Appeal from 216th District Court of Gillespie County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-19-00017-CR OMAR BENITEZ ARIAS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 216th District Court Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 6599, Honorable N. Keith Williams, Presiding July 2, 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. Omar Benitez Arias, appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment by which he was convicted for failing to comply with sex-offender registration requirements, a state-jail felony, and sentenced to two years’ confinement in a state-jail facility. Appellant filed an appeal and counsel was appointed.1 1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals, we are obligated to apply its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief in the cause. Through those documents, counsel certified that, after he diligently searched the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter informing appellant of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. In supplemental correspondence, counsel provided appellant a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records of the proceeding. By letter dated April 18, 2019, this Court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by May 20, 2019. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which included the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the relevant portion of the sex-offender registration statutes. Counsel provided analysis and authority to support his conclusion that neither of those areas present an arguable issue for appeal. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). That review led us to agree with counsel’s assessment save one item to be modified. The trial court’s judgment of conviction identifies the relevant provision under which appellant was convicted as article 62.102(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code; there being no such provision, we are confident that the relevant provision is, in fact, article 62.102(b)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the incorrect code was a mere clerical error. Consequently, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 of an offense under article 62.102(b)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). In all other things, the judgment is affirmed as modified. We grant the pending motion to withdraw.3 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
