NUMBER 13-12-00217-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
DAVID GONZALEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1
Appellant, David Gonzalez, entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of
burglary of a habitation with intent to commit a felony, a first degree felony. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2011). The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to fifteen
1
The Honorable Rose Vela, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in deciding the case
because her term of office expired on December 31, 2012. “In accordance with the appellate rules, she
was replaced on panel by Justice Nora L. Longoria”. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
years’ incarceration. The trial court certified Gonzalez’s right to appeal, and this appeal
followed. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Gonzalez’s appellate
counsel has filed a brief with this Court stating that after diligently reviewing the record,
he has determined that there are no arguable grounds of error upon which an appeal
can be predicated and that Gonzalez’s appeal is without merit. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court
that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal; (2) served copies of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Gonzalez;
and (3) informed Gonzalez of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3. More than
an adequate time has passed, and no pro se response has been filed. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, and we have found nothing
that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion
that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible
2
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.@ In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2
error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 47.1.@); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Gonzalez’s attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (AIf an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he
must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.@) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is
ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Gonzalez and advise him of his
right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
___________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
24th day of January, 2013.
3
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gonzalez 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 or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that is overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
3