Jonathan Joe Cooper v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 14th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » Jonathan Joe Cooper v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 14-07-00021-CR

Case Date: 12/18/2008

Plaintiff: Jonathan Joe Cooper

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Joe Luis Gutierrez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
174th District Court of Harris County
Opinion issued February 14, 2008
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-07-00108-CR
JOE LUIS GUTIERREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1090823
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joe Luis Gutierrez, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation as to punishment, to the felony
offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, namely, a straight razor. After a hearing on the return of a
presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years. Appellant's
appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief. (1)
Background
During an argument while intoxicated, appellant cut the complainant, Justin Bell, with a straight razor. Appellant was
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85166.html[8/20/2013 9:06:48 PM]

arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He signed a "Waiver of Constitutional Rights,
Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession" and pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation by the State.
The trial court questioned appellant regarding the voluntariness of the guilty plea and admonished him regarding his
rights. Appellant initialed sections of a form entitled "Admonishments" and signed the form. The trial court accepted
appellant's plea and gave further admonishments on the record. At a later date, the trial court conducted a punishment
hearing and considered a presentence investigation report. After hearing the testimony of appellant and arguments of
counsel, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for five years. The trial court
certified that appellant had the right of appeal.
Discussion
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief, stating that he has found no arguable points of error
to raise on appeal and moving to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why
there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.
Without citation to the record, appellant states that he wished to change his guilty plea after entering it, that he did not
understand the presentence investigation paperwork he signed after entering his plea of guilty, and that he attempted to
withdraw his guilty plea by copying verbatim a form "motion to withdraw" that he found in the law library. He also
states that the facts argued by the State at sentencing, which were included in the presentence investigation report,
were inaccurate.
A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. Upon reviewing
the entire record, it may determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds
no reversible error or (2) that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for
appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record. We conclude that there is no reversible error and that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.
We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (2)
Sam Nuchia
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2. Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal, send appellant a copy of this
opinion and judgment, and notify appellant that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.1; see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex
parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.--
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85166.html[8/20/2013 9:06:48 PM]

Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/85166.html[8/20/2013 9:06:48 PM]

Download 85166.pdf