Ernest Gonzales v. the State of Texas
04-20-00358-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Ernest Gonzales was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact.
- Sentences: 35 years for aggravated sexual assault; 20 years for each indecency count, all to run concurrently.
- Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders-style brief concluding the appeal was frivolous.
- Counsel complied with Texas procedures (Anders/High) and Kelly by providing Gonzales a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and informing him of his rights.
- Gonzales did not file a pro se brief after being notified of the deadline.
- The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed the record, found no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and declined to appoint substitute counsel; it explained deadlines and procedures for seeking discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders/High | Counsel conducted a professional, thorough review and concluded appeal was frivolous; complied with procedural requirements | Gonzales raised no objection or pro se challenge | Court: Counsel complied; motion to withdraw granted |
| Whether the appeal presented any arguable grounds for reversal | State: Record and brief show no arguable issues; appeal frivolous | Gonzales did not submit pro se brief or identify issues | Court: No arguable grounds; appeal wholly frivolous; judgment affirmed |
| Whether substitute counsel should be appointed for further review | State: No substitute counsel required for this stage | Gonzales did not request or demonstrate need for counsel | Court: No substitute counsel appointed; instructions given for filing PDR |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appointed counsel may withdraw only after filing a brief demonstrating the appeal is frivolous)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (Texas application of Anders requirements for counsel withdrawal)
- Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requirements for advising appellant when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for determining an appeal is frivolous and permitting counsel withdrawal)
- Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (procedural guidance on counsel withdrawal and notification)
- Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (similar guidance for Anders-type withdrawals)