Teran Harrison Gonzalez v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued October 25, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00082-CR
____________
TERAN HARRISON GONZALEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 272nd District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10-01697-CRF-272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Teran Harrison Gonzalez, pleaded guilty without an agreed
punishment recommendation to the charge of knowingly possessing, with intent to
deliver, a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in the amount of 4 grams or more
but less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.102(3)(D);
§ 481.112(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court found appellant guilty and, after
preparation of a pretrial sentence investigation report and a hearing on punishment,
the trial court assessed punishment at 10 years’ confinement. Appellant timely filed
a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and
therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel discusses the
evidence adduced at the trial, supplies us with references to the record, and provides
us with citation to legal authorities. Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly
reviewed the record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of error that
warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,
193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Here, counsel’s brief reflects that she delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a
response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review,
and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining
that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for
review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193
S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable
grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Nelda F. Williams must immediately send the notice required
by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the
Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.
3