MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00770-CR
Richard GONZALES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-CR-0249
Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2009
AFFIRMED
After entering a plea of no contest on September 5, 2008, the trial court ordered a pre-
sentence investigation and reset the matter for sentencing. Approximately one month later, the
trial court found Appellant Richard Gonzales guilty of the offense of sexual assault and
sentenced Gonzales to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Gonzales appeals the trial court’s sentence.
04-08-00770-CR
Gonzales’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that
the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Gonzales with a copy of the brief and informed him
of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-
86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Gonzales filed a pro se brief on May 18, 2009, asserting
counsel was ineffective in advising him to enter a plea of no contest.
After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief and the pro se response, we agree that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or
pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous); see also Thompson v. State,
9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (noting record on direct appeal generally is not
sufficiently developed to defeat presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance but also
noting claim can be raised by a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus). The
judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.
Furthermore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at
86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gonzales
wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this
court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this
court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP.
-2-
04-08-00770-CR
P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Do not publish
-2-