MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00255-CR
Edward GONZALES,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 08-1314-CR
Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 6, 2011
AFFIRMED
Edward Gonzales pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and
received ten years’ deferred adjudication. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke
community supervision alleging Gonzales committed eighteen violations of the conditions of his
probation. Gonzales pled “true” to several of the alleged violations. The trial court found the
alleged violations were true, and proceeded to adjudicate Gonzales guilty of aggravated sexual
assault of a child; the court also noted Gonzales’s prior plea of “true” to an alleged enhancement
04-10-00255-CR
for a prior felony conviction and found the enhancement to be true. The court sentenced
Gonzales to 25 years’ imprisonment. Gonzales now appeals the trial court’s judgment. We
affirm.
Gonzales’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a
motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Gonzales with a copy of the brief and motion
to withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief.
See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also
Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Gonzales did
not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error
and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
See id. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 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 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.
-2-
04-10-00255-CR
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.
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-
Edward Gonzales v. State
Combined Opinion