Court Opinion

ID: 2884177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 17:16:14.366464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:35.610247
License: Public Domain

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00072-CR

______________________________

JESUS BARAJAS GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 294th Judicial District Court

Van Zandt County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR07-00025

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

	Jesus Barajas Gonzalez appeals from his conviction by a jury for indecency with a child by
sexual contact.  The trial judge sentenced Gonzalez to twelve years' imprisonment and a $2,500.00
fine. (1)  Gonzalez was represented by appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.  
	Gonzalez's attorney has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. 
Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); and High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
	Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Gonzalez on September 9, 2009, informing Gonzalez
of his right to file a pro se response and to review the record.  Counsel has also filed a motion with
this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.  Gonzalez has neither filed a pro se
response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.
	We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.  We have independently reviewed
the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. 
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  In a frivolous appeal
situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the
appeal must be dismissed or affirmed.  See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
	We affirm the judgment of the trial court. (2)

						Jack Carter
						Justice

Date Submitted:	November 19, 2009
Date Decided:		November 20, 2009

Do Not Publish
1. Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court
by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts.  See Tex. Gov't Code Ann.
§ 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
2. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders,
grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Gonzalez in this case.  No
substitute counsel will be appointed.  Should Gonzalez wish to seek further review of this case by
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Gonzalez must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or Gonzalez 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 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 along with the rest of the filings in this case.  See Tex. R. App.
P. 68.3.  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.

n="false"
   UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                         In
The
                                                Court
of Appeals
                        Sixth
Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
 
                                                ______________________________
 
                                                             No. 06-11-00071-CR
                                                ______________________________
 
 
                                   DOUGLAS JAMES LANE,
Appellant
 
                                                                V.
 
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
 
                                                                                                  

 
 
                                         On Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court
                                                             Smith County, Texas
                                                       Trial Court
No. 007-1471-10
 
                                                      
                                            
 
 
 
                                          Before Morriss, C.J.,
Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                        Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

                                                     MEMORANDUM 
OPINION
 
            Douglas
James Lane, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal,
originally filed in the Tyler Court of Appeals.[1]  The motion is signed by Lane and by his
counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P.
42.2(a).  As authorized by Rule 42.2, we
grant the motion.  See Tex. R. App. P.
42.2.
            Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal.
 
 
                                                                        Josh
R. Morriss, III
                                                                        Chief
Justice
 
Date Submitted:          May
6, 2011
Date Decided:             May
9, 2011
 
Do Not Publish           
 
 

[1]Originally
appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this
Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization
efforts.  See Tex. Govt Code Ann.
§ 73.001 (Vernon 2005).  We are unaware
of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of
this Court on any relevant issue.  See Tex.
R. App. P. 41.3.