Court Opinion

ID: 2872434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-06 04:45:19.405619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:59.802276
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-07-00135-CR

                               Jerret Anthony Gomez, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

      FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
          NO. 54292, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Jerret Anthony Gomez pleaded no contest to sexual assault and was placed

on deferred adjudication supervision. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011 (West Supp. 2006). The

State subsequently moved to adjudicate, and appellant pleaded true to most of the allegations in the

motion. The court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment, enhanced by previous felony

convictions, at life imprisonment.

               Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

               We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

               The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                                              ___________________________________________

                                              W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: November 15, 2007

Do Not Publish

                                                 2