Jose Gomez Sanchez v. State

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00742-CR Jose Gomez SANCHEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A10689 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 11, 2012 AFFIRMED

After a jury trial, appellant, Jose Gomez Sanchez, was convicted of indecency by exposure with a child younger than seventeen years of age. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement. We conclude this appeal is frivolous and without merit; therefore, we affirm.

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief with this court in which he concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In his brief, counsel states: (1) he diligently reviewed the appellate record; (2) he found no non-frivolous grounds for reversal present in the record; and (3) he served a copy of this brief on appellant with a letter informing appellant of his right to file a pro se brief on his own behalf. 1 In counsel’s brief, counsel reviewed the indictment and pretrial matters; evidence adduced at trial; the jury charge; and closing arguments. Counsel also reviewed the punishment phase of trial, including evidence adduced. Finally, counsel examined the record to determine whether any claim of ineffective assistance could be brought and concluded none could. With citations to the record and legal precedent, counsel explains why he concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–45; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509S10, 510 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80. We have reviewed the entire record and find that the appeal is frivolous; therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Do not publish