Luis G. Galvan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this CaseNo. 04-02-00925-CR
Luis G. GALVAN,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CR-0560
Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2003
AFFIRMED
Luis Galvan appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, Galvan entered a plea of no contest to the offense charged. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years imprisonment. The punishment assessed by the trial court did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.
Galvan's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Galvan, who was advised of his right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
When Galvan appealed former Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) was in effect. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (repealed). Under former Rule 25.2(b)(3), where the appeal is from a judgment rendered on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. Galvan's notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3). We therefore do not have "power to address the merits of" any of the issues on which appeal is allowed under Rule 25.2(b)(3). Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 803 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. 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.).
Catherine Stone, Justice
Do Not Publish
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.