Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00509-CR Raul Anthony ORTIZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-04-088-CRW Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 5, 2023 AFFIRMED Raul Anthony Ortiz was indicted for possession of a controlled substance in penalty group 1, for an amount of 1 gram or more but less than 4 grams. Ortiz entered a plea bargain with the State in which he pled guilty and received ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice probated for a term of four years and a fine of $1,500. As part of the deal, Ortiz agreed to terms and conditions of community supervision, including fees and court costs.

The State eventually filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The motion alleged violations of eight conditions; Ortiz pled “true” 04-22-00509-CR

to violating three conditions. After hearing testimony from two witnesses, the trial court found Ortiz had violated the terms of probation, adjudicated Ortiz guilty, revoked probation, and sentenced Ortiz to ten years confinement. This appeal followed.

Ortiz’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief, which included a request to withdraw, in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Ortiz and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014). This court notified Ortiz of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Ortiz did not file a pro se brief. See also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the request to withdraw filed by appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Ortiz wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition

-2- 04-22-00509-CR

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-