In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-22-00273-CR ___________________________ OSCAR ORTIZ RIVERA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1666649D

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker MEMORANDUM OPINION By indictment, the State charged Appellant Oscar Ortiz Rivera1 with one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2). Upon his plea of not guilty, Ortiz Rivera’s case was tried to a jury, who found Ortiz Rivera guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed his punishment at three years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33 (punishment range for second-degree felony). The trial court sentenced Ortiz Rivera accordingly.

After determining that Ortiz Rivera’s appeal was frivolous, Ortiz Rivera’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Ortiz Rivera with copies of the brief and motion to withdraw; he informed Ortiz Rivera of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous; and he sent Ortiz Rivera a form motion for pro se The appellant’s name is spelled multiple different ways throughout the record.

The indictment and judgment identify him as “OSCAR ORTIZRIVERA.”

Throughout the reporter’s record, his surname is transcribed as “Ortiz Rivera.” In filings with this court, his appellate counsel identifies him as “Oscar Ortiz-Rivera.”

Based on our comprehensive review of the record, we believe “Ortiz Rivera” to be the correct spelling.

access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Ortiz Rivera had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do so. The State has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined 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). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Brian Walker Brian Walker Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: October 12, 2023