Gonzalo Molina v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued July 9, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00079-CR
NO. 01-14-00080-CR
———————————
GONZALO MOLINA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 339th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1320267 & 1320268
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Gonzalo Molina, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of the
felony offense of indecency with a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1)
(West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment and sentenced appellant to eight
years’ imprisonment for each offense with the sentences running concurrently. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (providing the elements for the offense of
indecency with a child when the defendant “engages in sexual contact with the
child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact”); § 21.11(d) (“An offense
under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree . . . .”); TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 12.33 (West 2013) (second-degree felony punishable by imprisonment for
a term of 2 to 20 years). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 and supplying us with references to the record
and legal authority. 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 indicates that she has
thoroughly reviewed the record and 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, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant filed a pro se response asserting that he had ineffective assistance
of counsel at trial, claiming that trial counsel “failed to investigate and produce
work records of the appellant” and “failed to subpoena key witnesses, relatives of
the alleged victim.”
2
We independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude
that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for
review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing
court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We
note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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 Cheri Duncan must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of these appeals
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3