In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00044-CR 

QUINCY DWAYNE YARBROUGH, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 242nd District Court 

Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B19404-1302, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding 

 

October 2, 2014 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Quincy Dwayne Yarbrough, appellant, appeals his conviction for Tampering with 

Physical Evidence. Appellant was tried and found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 

two years in prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an

Anders1brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has 

concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a 

letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible

 

1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 
2

error and of appellant’s right to respond pro se. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion 

to access the record, which was granted, and appellant’s counsel was ordered to 

provide the record. Counsel advised this court that he provided the record to appellant 

for preparation of a pro se response, if any, on August 11, 2014. By letter, this court 

notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by September 22, 2014, if 

he wished to do so. To date, no response has been received. 

Per the obligation imposed on this court via In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991), we reviewed the record to access the accuracy of appellate counsel’s 

representation. Our review uncovered an arguable issue. It pertains to the sufficiency 

of the evidence to support a conviction of tampering with physical evidence by 

destruction of that evidence. See Rabb v. State, 434 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); see also Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Because the opinion expressed by appellant’s currently appointed attorney could 

be viewed as creating a conflict of interest, we grant his motion to withdraw. We further

abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 242nd District Court of Hale

County. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Upon remand, the trial court shall

appoint, by October 16, 2014, new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. Next, 

the trial court shall cause the name, address, and state bar number of the newly

appointed counsel to be included in a supplemental transcript. The record of that 

appointment shall be filed by the trial court with the clerk of this court on or before 

October 16, 2014.
3

Finally, the trial court shall further order the newly appointed counsel to file an 

appellant’s brief, as per the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, developing the

aforementioned arguable ground pertaining to sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

conviction and all other grounds that might support reversal or modification of the 

judgment. The deadline for filing the appellant’s brief with the clerk of this court is thirty 

days from the date of appointment. Thereafter, any responding brief which the State 

may care to submit shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the appellant’s brief.

It is so ordered.

 Per Curiam 

Do not publish.