Robert Michael Gomez v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued September 5, 2013

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

NO. 01-12-01026-CR NO. 01-12-01027-CR ____________

ROBERT MICHAEL GOMEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 10CR3362 & 10CR3363

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Robert Michael Gomez, pleaded guilty, without an agreed

recommendation, to two felony offenses of aggravated robbery. The trial court

found appellant guilty of both offenses and assessed punishment at 15 years’ confinement for each offense, to run concurrently. The trial court certified that

appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant

and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has

not filed a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

2 grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell,

193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by

reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court

of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court in each appeal and grant counsel’s

motions to withdraw.1 Attorney Steven Hershkowitz must immediately send the

notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that

notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3