eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2013-12

Hector Augusto Gramajo v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                               Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00451-CR
Hector Augusto GRAMAJO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-CR-9358
Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
Opinion by:       Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting:          Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2013
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Hector Augosto Gramajo was convicted by a jury of intoxication assault. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 49.07 (West 2011). The court sentenced Gramajo to three years’ imprisonment in
accordance with the jury’s recommendation, and assessed $460 in court costs. Gramajo now
appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Gramajo’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional
evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967), and a
motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this
04-12-00451-CR
appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also
High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State,
    436 S.W.2d 137 
    (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Gramajo with a copy of the brief and motion to
withdraw, and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own pro se brief. See
Nichols v. State,
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns
v. State,
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Gramajo did not file
a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and
agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See
    id. Appellate counsel’s 
    motion to withdraw is granted.
    Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86
    ;
    Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 
    n.1.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gramajo wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition
for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition
for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-