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