eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2020-02

David Gonzalez-Estrada v. State ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00261-CR
DAVID GONZALEZ-ESTRADA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018-1530-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Gonzalez-Estrada was convicted of online solicitation of a minor. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 33.021 (West 2016). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Gonzalez-Estrada’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate
record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and
compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has
performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v.
State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State,
    436 S.W.3d 313
    ,
319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the
proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; see
Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 509-11 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any
basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n. 10 (1988). After a
review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly
frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly,
we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Gonzalez-Estrada is
granted.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice
Gonzalez-Estrada v. State                                                               Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed February 26, 2020
Do not publish
[CR25]
Gonzalez-Estrada v. State                       Page 3