Alan Edward MacGonegal, Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: July 1, 2026
• Docket: 04-24-00883-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00883-CR

Alan Edward MACGONEGAL, Jr., Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-05-14405-CR Honorable Daniel J. Kindred, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 1, 2026

AFFIRMED

After a jury trial, Alan Edward MacGonegal, Jr. was found guilty of indecency with a

child—sexual contact and was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment. McGonegal appealed.

MacGonegal’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and

legal authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and

concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 04-24-00883-CR

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a

professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel certified that he served copies of the brief and motion

to withdraw on MacGonegal, informed MacGonegal of his right to review the record and file a pro

se brief, explained to MacGonegal the procedure for obtaining the record, and provided

MacGonegal a form motion for pro se access to the record. This court subsequently set a deadline

for MacGonegal to file a pro se brief. MacGonegal did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief, we conclude that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal, and the appeal is wholly 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, and should only determine if the appeal

is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellate counsel’s

motion to withdraw. 1 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.).

Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should MacGonegal wish to seek further review 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 either the date of this opinion or from “the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.

-2-