Jose Leonel Gonzales v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00270-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00270-CR

Jose Leonel Gonzales, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 474th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge E. Alan Bennett, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2021-905-C6

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jose Leonel Gonzales was charged by indictment with three counts of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §

22.02(a)(2). After a jury trial, Gonzales was convicted of aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon as charged in Count Two and of the lesser-included

offense of deadly conduct by discharging a firearm in Count One and Count

Three. See id. at §§ 22.02, 22.05(b)(2). On Counts One and Three, the jury assessed his punishment at two years in prison and recommended that the

trial court place Gonzales on community supervision. On Count Two, the jury

assessed Gonzales’s punishment at ten years in prison. The trial court

sentenced Gonzales accordingly, and this appeal followed.

Gonzales’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief in support of the motion, asserting that he has diligently reviewed

the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

Counsel’s brief demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record for error

and he has demonstrated compliance with the other duties of appointed

counsel. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

By letter, we informed Gonzales of his right to review the appellate record and

to file a pro se response. Gonzales did not file a pro se response.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must conduct a full examination of

the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102

L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they “cannot conceivably

persuade the court.” McCoy v. Ct. of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436 (1988). We

Jose Leonel Gonzales v. The State of Texas Page 2 have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal

is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in Count One, Count

Two, and Count Three.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Gonzales is

granted.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 31, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed, motion granted Do not publish CR25

Jose Leonel Gonzales v. The State of Texas Page 3