Raymond Aguilar a/k/a Raymon Aguilar v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00505-CR Raymond AGUILAR a/k/a Raymon Aguilar, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002-CR-0353A Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2010 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Raymond Aguilar pled no contest to a charge of burglary of a habitation by force in exchange for the State s recommendation that adjudication be deferred. In June 2002, pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Aguilar on community supervision for a period of eight years. In August 2009, Aguilar pled true to the State s allegation he violated a 04-09-00505-CR condition of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated Aguilar guilty and sentenced him to six years in prison. Aguilar 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 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 states Aguilar was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record1 and file his own brief. He has not done so. After reviewing the record and counsel s 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 Aguilar 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 Aguilar 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 ¦ 1 Counsel also detailed the procedure for obtaining the record. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W .2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). -2- 04-09-00505-CR Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. 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. 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.
