Saul R. Gonzalez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 81st Judicial District Court of La Salle County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00167-CR Saul R. GONZALEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 07-05-00019-CRL Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 24, 2010 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Saul R. Gonzalez pled guilty to a charge of delivery of cocaine (one to four grams) in exchange for the State s recommendation that adjudication be deferred. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Gonzalez on community supervision for a period of five years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, and Gonzalez pled true to the allegation he possessed marihuana in violation of the terms of his community 04-1000167-CR supervision. The trial court adjudicated Gonzalez guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. Gonzalez s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Gonzalez copies of the brief, motion to withdraw, and the appellate record, and informed Gonzalez of his right to file his own brief. Gonzalez filed a pro se brief in which he contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court and his plea was involuntary. After reviewing the record, counsel s brief, and the pro se brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly 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 Gonzalez s 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 Gonzalez 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 from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See id. R. -2- 04-1000167-CR 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. Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Do not publish -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
