David Longoria Gonzales v. The State of TexasAppeal from 266th District Court of Erath County (Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 11-13-00030-CR

Case Date: 06/13/2013

Plaintiff: David Longoria Gonzales

Defendant: The State of TexasAppeal from 266th District Court of Erath County (Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam)

Preview:Opinion filed June 13, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-13-00030-CR
__________

DAVID LONGORIA GONZALES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 266th District Court Erath County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR13797

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted David Longoria Gonzales of the first-degree felony of possession of a controlled substance. The jury assessed his punishment at

confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of seventy years and imposed a fine of $10,000. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this appeal. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.-- Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel's motion to withdraw and supporting brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

Download 11-13-00030-cr.pdf