From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gomez v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Feb 5, 2018
No. 07-17-00363-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)

Opinion

No. 07-17-00363-CR

02-05-2018

TOMAS GOMEZ, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


On Appeal from the 64th District Court Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A19805-1411 , Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid, Jr., Presiding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.

Tomas Gomez, appellant, appeals the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision imposed for the original offense of assault of a family member and sentencing him to eight years imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed and was appointed counsel.

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in the cause. Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter informing appellant of his counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response, pro se. By letter dated December 27, 2017, this Court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response by January 26, 2018. To date, appellate has not filed a pro se response.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal, which areas included (1) the applicable punishment range for the original offense, (2) the viability of any issues relating to appellant's motion to suppress, and (3) the propriety of trial court's action in correcting the title of its judgment by judgment nunc pro tunc. However, counsel then explained why those issues lacked merit.

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice Do not publish.


Summaries of

Gomez v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Feb 5, 2018
No. 07-17-00363-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)
Case details for

Gomez v. State

Case Details

Full title:TOMAS GOMEZ, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Feb 5, 2018

Citations

No. 07-17-00363-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)