eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-06

Salvador Gonzales v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:

  • NO. 07-10-00376-CR

     

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

     

    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

     

    AT AMARILLO

     

    PANEL B

     

    JUNE 15, 2011

     

     

    SALVADOR GONZALES, JR., APPELLANT

     

    v.

     

    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

     

     

     FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

     

    NO. CR-10C-029; HONORABLE ROLAND D. SAUL, JUDGE

     

     

    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

     

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Appellant, Salvador Gonzales, Jr, pleaded guilty to the first degree felony offense of injury to a child.[1]  After hearing the punishment evidence, a jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of 65 years.  Appellant gave notice of appeal.  We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

    Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

    Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed.[2]

                                                                                                    Mackey K. Hancock

    Justice

    Do not publish.


    [1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1) (West 2011).

     

    [2] Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.