Eric Nicholas Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00525-CR

Eric Nicholas Gonzales, Appellant v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2021-254B, THE HONORABLE TRACIE WRIGHT-RENEAU, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Eric Nicholas Gonzales guilty of first-degree aggravated kidnapping, first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and second-degree assault—family violence by impeding breath or circulation with a previous conviction. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 20.04(a)(5), 22.01(b-3), 22.02(a)(2), 22.021(a)(1)(A)(ii). Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph, which alleged that he had been previously convicted of felony aggravated assault. See id. § 22.02. The trial court sentenced him to sixty-years’ imprisonment for each offense to run concurrently. See id. § 12.42(b), (c)(1). He appeals.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and presents no arguably meritorious issues. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See

2

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant did not file a pro se response.

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the trial proceedings and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and that the appeal is frivolous.

We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis Affirmed Filed: August 6, 2025 Do Not Publish