Johnny Gomez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 372nd District Court of Tarrant County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NOS. 2-09-028-CR 2-09-029-CR JOHNNY GOMEZ APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 -----------Appellant Johnny Gomez waived a jury and entered open pleas of guilt to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery, both enhanced with repeat offender allegations to which appellant pled true. He appeals his convictions and twenty-five year sentences on each charge. We affirm. 1 ï ¤ See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Appellant s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeals are frivolous. Counsel s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se brief, alleging ineffective assistance by trial counsel. The State declined to file a brief. Once an appellant s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeals are frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record in each case. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922 23 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the records in each case, counsel s brief, and appellant s pro se brief. We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. 2 Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court s judgments. PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and GARDNER, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: December 3, 2009 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.
