Rolando Cruz v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-25-00299-CR
___________________________

ROLANDO CRUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 485th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1825360

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rolando Cruz appeals his conviction for failing to comply with the

requirements of Transportation Code Section 550.021 following a vehicle collision

resulting in death, a second-degree-felony offense. See Tex. Transp. Code § 550.021(a),

(c)(1)(A). Cruz entered a guilty plea without the benefit of either a charge bargain or a

sentencing bargain and elected to have his punishment assessed by the trial judge.

Following a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Cruz to 15 years’

incarceration. This appeal followed.

After determining that Cruz’s appeal was frivolous, his 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). The attorney’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders 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, Cruz’s attorney has certified that he provided Cruz with copies of

the brief and the motion to withdraw, informed him of his right to file a pro se

response and to receive a free copy of the appellate record, provided him with a

motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only his signature, and

informed him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of

Criminal Appeals if he does not receive relief from this court. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Cruz an opportunity to file a pro se

2
response, but he has not done so. In lieu of a brief, the State filed a letter stating that

it agreed with appellate counsel’s determination that the appeal was wholly frivolous.

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/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell
Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: May 7, 2026

3