Court Opinion

ID: 4069715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:48:05.089454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:39.286930
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                                 13-15-00071-CR
                                                                                 THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
        FILED                                                                           CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS                                                               9/30/2015 11:05:06 PM
        CORPUS CHRISTI                                                                          Dorian E. Ramirez
                                                                                                           CLERK
         09/21/15
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ, CLERK             CAUSE NO. 13-15-00071-CR
BY cholloway
                                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                  RECEIVED IN
                            THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF13thTEXAS
                                                                 COURT OF APPEALS
                                                          CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
             ________________________________________________________________________
                                                                9/30/2015 11:05:06 PM
                       APPEAL OF A JUDGMENT IN TRIAL CAUSE        DORIAN
                                                                NO.        E. RAMIREZ
                                                                     CR-1850-14-J
                                                                         Clerk
                     FROM THE 430th DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
                                      PRESIDING ISRAEL RAMON

             ________________________________________________________________________
                                  MARIBEL ROSALES GOMEZ, Appellant
                                                  VS.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
             ________________________________________________________________________

                               APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL ANDERS BRIEF
             ________________________________________________________________________
             Respectfully submitted,
             Johnathan Ball
             6521 N. 10th Street, Suite F
             McAllen, Texas 78504
             (956) 501-6565
             (956) 627-2429 (fax)
             johnballattorney@gmail.com
             State Bar Number: 24045443
             Appellant’s Attorney
               IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

1.   Appellant is MARIBEL ROSALES GOMEZ, (hereinafter “APPELLANT”) resides
     at CHRISTINA MELTON CRAIN UNIT1401 State School Road; Gatesville, TX
     76599-2999.

2.   Appellant’s trial attorney was Laura Martinez Colunga.

3.   Appellant’s Appellate lawyer is Johnathan Ball.

4.   Appellee is the State of Texas.

5.   Appellee is represented by the Hidalgo County Criminal District Attorney, Ricardo
     Rodriguez. The Appellee’s trial attorneys were Assistant Criminal District Attorneys
     Gracie Reyna. The Appellee’s appellate attorney is Assistant Criminal District
     Attorney, Ted Hake. All of their addresses are at the Office of the Hidalgo County
     Criminal District Attorney, Hidalgo County Courthouse, 100 N. Closner, Room303,
     Edinburg, Texas 78539.

                                          2
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................................5
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .....................................................5
ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................................................................. ........5
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... ..........5
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT...............................................................................6
ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................9

                                                              3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Case Law Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)...............................................................................6

Hernon vs. State, 215 SW.3d 901 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)..............................................................6

                                                            4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       Appellant pled guilty to the court. 1RR5. There was no plea bargain in place. 1RR5.

The Court assessed punishment at nine years imprisonment. 1RR5. A Motion to Reconsider

the punishment assessed was filed and denied. 1RR4. A timely Motion for New Trial was

filed. 1RR4. The Appellant urged a Motion for New trial based on the punishment assessed

by the Court being “unjust”. 1RR5. The trial court denied the Motion for New Trial. 1RR8.

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant waives oral argument.

ISSUE PRESENTED

There are no arguments made in this brief. This is an Anders brief.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

       Appellant pled guilty to the court to the charge of felony theft. 1RR5. There was no

plea bargain in place. 1RR5. The Court assessed punishment at nine years imprisonment.

1RR5. A Motion to Reconsider the punishment assessed was filed and denied. 1RR4. A

timely Motion for New Trial was filed. 1RR4. The Appellant urged a Motion for New Trial.

arguing the punishment assessed by the Court being “unjust”. 1RR5. Appellant argued the

court should grant the new trial “on the basis of justice, just based on the fact that it was an

unjust punishment [ ] given the offense.” 1RR5. Appellant argued that this was only a theft

case, and no one was “harmed or injured” or “dead”. 1RR5. The State disagreed that “no one

                                               5
was harmed” because the Appellant pled guilty to stealing money from an elderly individual.

1RR6. The Trial Court denied the Motion for New Trial. 1RR8. This appeal of the denial of

the Motion for New Trial ensued.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

       There are no non-frivolous appellate issues to be made in this case.

ARGUMENT

       Appellant’s counsel has read the record thoroughly. The reporter’s record in this case

is only ten pages. All arguments from Appellant’s trial counsel and the State’s trial counsel

were reviewed and researched by Appellant’s counsel. Appellant’s counsel believes that are

no meritorious, no frivolous claims to argue pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Appellant’s counsel is unaware of, and can locate no authority, supporting

Appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a within

punishment range sentence. To the contrary, the general rule is that any sentence within the

statutory range of punishment is not excessive. McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166, 174 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978).

       Appellant’s sole complaint is the Court imposed an just sentence, and as a matter of

justice, the Motion for New Trial should be granted. 1RR5. The State cited the Court to

Hernon vs. State, 215 SW.3d 901 - 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). The State’s reliance on Heron

appears proper. And the Court’s application of the standard for granting new trials as

explained in Hernon appears properly applied to the facts of this case, and arguments set

                                             6
forth by Appellant’s trial counsel.

          On the record before Appellant’s counsel, there is no indication Appellant’s

substantial rights were affected in the denial of the Motion for New Trial. On the record

before Appellant’s counsel, there simply does not appear to be any non-frivolous appellate

issues.

          Appellant’s counsel has considered the case law relating to sentencing, and motions

for new trial. Appellant’s counsel has looked for a Due Process argument and/or Cruel and

Unusual Punishment argument to be made for this appeal relating to either the sentence

imposed by the court or the denial of the Motion for New Trial. Appellant’s counsel can find

no case law supporting a such a Constitutional claim, nor was one presented to the trial court

as part of the Motion for New Trial. This is the first Anders brief Appellant’s counsel has

filed.

          Appellant has been notified, in writing, of the following:

          1.     She has the right to file a response to this Motion to Withdraw within thirty

                 days from today’s date (September 30, 2015);

          2.     She has the right to review the appellate record in preparation of filing a

                 response to this Motion to Withdraw;

          3.     Appellant was mailed (on September 30, 2015) a Motion for Pro Se Access to

                 the Appellate Record and was informed she must file the Motion within ten

                                                7
              days. The address for the 13th Court of Appeals is listed in the Motion for Pro

              Se Access to Appellate Record;

       4.     Finally, if she chose to file an appeal pro se, and the 13th Court of Appeals

              holds the appeal is frivolous, she may still seek a Petition for Discretionary

              Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, whose mailing address is

              Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711.

                                     CONCLUSION

       Appellant’s counsel believes this appeal should be dismissed.

                                        PRAYER

       Wherefore, premises considered, the Appellant prays this court dismiss this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,
/S/JOHNATHAN BALL
JOHNATHAN BALL
6521 N. 10th Street, Suite F
McAllen, Texas 78504
(956) 501-6565
(956) 627-2429 (fax)
johnballattorney@gmail.com
State Bar Number: 24045443
Appellant’s Attorney

                                             8
                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
       I certify that a true and correct copy of Appellant’s Brief has been submitted to the
Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office on September 30, 2015, to wit: Glenn Devino at
glenn.devino@da.co.hidalgo.tx.us, whose address is 100 N Closner Blvd # 303, Edinburg,
TX 78539.
/S/JOHNATHAN BALL
JOHNATHAN BALL

                           CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      I certify that the word court for this brief is 770 words.

/S/JOHNATHAN BALL
JOHNATHAN BALL

                                             9