Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00628-CR
EX PARTE Nelson Leon KING
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR9642
Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2014
AFFIRMED
Nelson Leon King was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on April 16,
2012; he posted bond in the amount of $50,000. Five months later, the charge was dismissed by
the State, purportedly for “insufficient evidence.” On November 26, 2012, the State re-indicted
King on the same charge. The trial court set King’s bond at $75,000, but later reduced the bond
amount to $25,000. King subsequently filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus
“Seeking Release for Lack of Probable Cause.” King asked the trial court to enforce the original
dismissal and discharge him from further restraint, and to enter an order dismissing the charges
with prejudice. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the requested relief. This
appeal followed.
04-13-00628-CR
King’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he
raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The
brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states King was provided copies of the brief, the record, and the motion
to withdraw and informed of his right to file his own brief. King did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005); Ex Parte Garcia, No. 04-06-00209-CR, 2006 WL 2352788, at *1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Aug. 16, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We therefore grant
the motion to withdraw filed by King’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe,
178 S.W.3d at 827; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should King 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 must 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 is 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 along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Do not publish
-2-