Opinion
No. 04-16-00816-CR
11-08-2017
Gilbert NAVARRO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-0226-CR-C
Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
A jury convicted Gilbert Navarro of eight counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court sentenced Navarro to eight concurrent life sentences. Navarro appeals the judgment.
Navarro's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record was conducted and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Navarro and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014). Appellant was advised of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief. In addition, counsel advised appellant to immediately file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record and enclosed a form motion for that purpose. Appellant did not request access to the record.
This court then set a deadline for Navarro to file a pro se brief. Navarro did not file a pro se brief. However, he filed several letters that the court has considered as a pro se brief. Navarro asserts that most of his arguments "are based on things [that] were not presented at the trial and possibly new evidence." In addition, he generally asserts the district attorney's office "suppressed and denied [his] lawyer's ability to prepare and present a case," that "the prosecutor's witness committed perjury," and that appellate counsel was ineffective. None of the issues Navarro raises are reflected in the record before us and he raises no arguable grounds for appellate review. The State filed a responsive brief in which it asserts there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs, and Navarro's correspondence. We conclude the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Navarro's appellate counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Navarro wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH