John Paul Gomez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00167-CR

John Paul GOMEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1995-CR-6259
Honorable Sid Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 14, 2001

AFFIRMED

John Paul Gomez entered a plea of nolo contendre to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Gomez was fully admonished in writing. See Crawford v. State, 890 S.W.2d 941, 944-45 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1994, no pet.) (prima facie showing that guilty plea was knowing and voluntary established when record reflects that trial court appropriately admonished a defendant); See also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000) (setting forth requisite admonishments). In accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement, Gomez was sentenced to five years deferred adjudication, and he agreed to the imposition of a $1,000 fine. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (limiting issues that may be raised on appeal if punishment does not exceed recommendation); see also Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 725 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (allowing jurisdictional issues to be raised); Luna v. State, 985 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd) (allowing voluntariness of the plea to be raised).

On December 20, 1999, the State filed its First Amended Motion to Revoke and on February 24, 2000, Gomez entered a plea of true to allegation No.1 in the State's motion. At the hearing, a new offense (99-CR-6145) was taken into consideration. Gomez was sentenced to the minimum of five years in the Texas Department of Correction, Institutional Division, with no fine. Gomez filed a timely notice of appeal on March 14, 2000.

Gomez's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Gomez with a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (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.).Gomez has not filed a pro se brief.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Attorney Suzanne Kramer's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH