Raymond Aguilar A/K/A Raymon Aguilar v. State

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00505-CR
Raymond AGUILAR a/k/a Raymon Aguilar,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-0353A
Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2010
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Raymond Aguilar pled no contest to a charge of burglary of a habitation by force in exchange
for the State’s recommendation that adjudication be deferred. In June 2002, pursuant to the plea
agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Aguilar on community supervision for
a period of eight years. In August 2009, Aguilar pled “true” to the State’s allegation he violated a
04-09-00505-CR
condition of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated Aguilar guilty and sentenced him
to six years in prison.
Aguilar’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Aguilar was provided a
copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record1
and file his own brief. He has not done so.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Aguilar’s counsel and affirm the
trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997,
no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Aguilar 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 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
… 1
Counsel also detailed the procedure for obtaining the record. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
-2-
04-09-00505-CR
Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary
review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
See id. R. 68.4.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Do not publish
-3-