Alfonso Gonzalez Valdez v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00049-CR
__________________

ALFONSO GONZALEZ VALDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-05-07030-CR
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Alfonso Gonzalez Valdez (“Appellant” or

“Valdez”) for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.02(a)(2). Valdez pleaded “not guilty” to the offense, but a

jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Valdez

to fifteen years of confinement. Valdez timely filed his appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has

reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

1
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Valdez to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Valdez.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

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.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1
Valdez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
2
AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on September 30, 2025
Opinion Delivered October 8, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

3