eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2009-12

Johnny Gomez v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •                          COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NOS. 2-09-028-CR
2-09-029-CR
JOHNNY GOMEZ                                                    APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                   STATE
------------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Johnny Gomez waived a jury and entered open pleas of guilt to
one count of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery, both enhanced with
repeat offender allegations to which appellant pled true.   He appeals his
convictions and twenty-five year sentences on each charge. We affirm.
1
 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds for relief.
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967). Appellant filed a pro
se brief, alleging ineffective assistance by trial counsel. The State declined to
file a brief.
Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw
on the ground that the appeals are frivolous and fulfills the requirements of
Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the
record in each case. See Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); Mays v. State,
    904 S.W.2d 920
    , 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See
Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 82–83,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the records in each case, counsel’s brief, and
appellant’s pro se brief. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly
frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 827–28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State,
    206 S.W.3d 684
    , 685 n.6 (Tex.
2
Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgments.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and GARDNER, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 3, 2009
3