In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00166-CR 

 

DANZEL RAY DAVIS, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 47th District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 32093A, Honorable Dee Johnson, Presiding 

April 16, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

(count 1)1 and possession of 1.31 grams of cocaine, a controlled substance (count 2).

2

 

He was assessed punishment of 10 years of confinement and a $5,000 fine on Count 1,

and 5 years of confinement and a $2,500 fine on Count 2, with the periods of confinement 

1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (second-degree felony).

2 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(c) (third-degree felony). 
2

to run concurrently. In his appeal, his counsel filed an Anders3 brief in support of a motion 

to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

The record reflects that in the early morning hours of March 31, 2022, Appellant 

fired two bullets at a car owned by Zamora Chaney in the parking lot of an Amarillo

nightclub. On-duty police officers who were across the street responded to the sound of 

gunfire. One officer recovered two shell casings from near where the shots were fired.

Officers in the area were instructed to be on the lookout for a white Dodge Charger; 

a car matching that description was soon seen driving in the area. After the Charger’s 

driver, later determined to be the Appellant, committed a traffic violation, officers initiated 

a stop. Appellant smelled of alcohol and was arrested. Police discovered a handgun 

underneath the driver’s seat of Appellant’s vehicle.4 When Appellant was searched upon 

arrival at the jail, police discovered seven bags of cocaine in his wallet. 

Appellant’s counsel has certified that after diligently searching the record, he has 

conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record 

reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant’s counsel 

informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response and provided Appellant with copies 

of his motion to withdraw, his Anders brief, and the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the 

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

4 At trial, the State presented testimony demonstrating a similarity between cartridge casings from 

the gun found in Appellant’s vehicle and the two casings recovered from the nightclub’s parking lot.
3

filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also 

advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.5 To date, 

Appellant has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent 

review of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were 

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. Like counsel, we conclude 

there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous 

v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

6

 

Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Lawrence M. Doss

 Justice

Do not publish. 

5 By letter, the State offered to file a brief if requested to do so—none was requested. 

6 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after this Court grants counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n. 33.