MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00770-CR

Richard GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-0249

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2009

AFFIRMED

After entering a plea of no contest on September 5, 2008, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation and reset the matter for sentencing. Approximately one month later, the 

trial court found Appellant Richard Gonzales guilty of the offense of sexual assault and 

sentenced Gonzales to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. Gonzales appeals the trial court’s sentence.
04-08-00770-CR

-2-

Gonzales’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of 

the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that 

the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Gonzales with a copy of the brief and informed him 

of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-

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.). Gonzales filed a pro se brief on May 18, 2009, asserting 

counsel was ineffective in advising him to enter a plea of no contest.

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief and the pro se response, we agree that the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005) (noting court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or 

pro se response but should only determine if the appeal is frivolous); see also Thompson v. State, 

9 S.W.3d 808, 813-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (noting record on direct appeal generally is not 

sufficiently developed to defeat presumption that counsel rendered effective assistance but also 

noting claim can be raised by a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus). The 

judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. 

Furthermore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 

86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gonzales

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 was 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. See TEX. R. APP.
04-08-00770-CR

-2-

P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of 

Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Do not publish