Salvador Gonzales v. State ( 2011 )

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
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a)(1) (West 2011).
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Do not publish.
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.
2