Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Miguel Garcia Gonzalez v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 13-23-00339-CR
• Nature of Suit: Murder

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Lead Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00339-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MIGUEL GARCIA GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 437TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion on Rehearing by Justice West

Appellant Miguel Garcia Gonzalez was convicted of murder, a first-degree felony,

and sentenced to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no

arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. ANDERS BRIEF 1

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion

to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant

of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses,

and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio

pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
§ 73.001.
2
(4) provided appellant with the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436

S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

On July 31, 2025, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and judgment affirming

the trial court’s judgment and granting appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. Gonzalez

v. State, No. 13-23-00339-CR, 2025 WL 2166999, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg July 31, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), reh’g granted,

opinion withdrawn (Oct. 28, 2025). Appellant filed a pro se motion for rehearing, stating

that he was unable to examine the appellate record to file a pro se response. Upon

reviewing appellant’s motion, the State’s response, and the record, we granted

appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdrew our previous memorandum opinion and

judgment, and reinstated the appeal on October 28, 2025. We ordered the trial court to

ensure that appellant had the opportunity to fully examine the clerk’s record and reporter’s

record. We also ordered the trial court to notify this Court as to the date upon which the

clerk’s record and reporter’s record was made available to appellant by filing a return

receipt or other documentary proof of delivery to appellant.

Appellant was granted thirty days from the day the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record were first made available to him to file his pro se response with this Court. See

generally TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6. The Court received a letter with attached proof of delivery

that the clerk’s record was delivered to appellant on November 21, 2025, and a letter with

attached proof of delivery that the reporter’s record was delivered to appellant on January

30, 2026. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

3
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the

opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4
IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

JON WEST
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
26th day of March, 2026.

5