Richardo Gomez v. State ( 2004 )

NO. 07-03-0436-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
MARCH 19, 2004
______________________________
RICARDO DWAYNE GOMEZ,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;
NO. 8,543-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1
Appellant Ricardo Dwayne Gomez appeals his conviction for driving while
intoxicated. Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge,
and the trial court assessed punishment at five years in prison. However, the sentence
was suspended and appellant was placed on three years community supervision. The trial
court eventually revoked appellant’s probation, upon motion by the State, and sentenced
him to five years imprisonment. Appellant timely noticed his appeal, and counsel was
1
John T. B oyd, C hief Justice (R et.), Se venth Court o f Appea ls, sitting by assignm ent. T EX . G O V ’T
C ODE A N N . §75.002 (a)(1 ) (Vernon Sup p. 2004).
appointed. The latter moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and representing that she had
searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief
illustrated that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file
his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any brief he cared to file had to be filed
by March 11, 2004. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief. Nor has he
moved for an extension of time to file same.
After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error.
Appellant informed the court via the plea admonishment papers he signed that he was 1)
properly indicted, 2) represented by legal counsel, and 3) mentally competent when
entering his plea. Furthermore, the punishment levied was within the range provided by
statute. And, because no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of appellant's
initial conviction, we have no jurisdiction over purported error arising at or before his
original plea hearing. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
2