Court Opinion

ID: 9391381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 11:09:11.092328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.600714
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-22-00512-CR
                                     NO. 03-22-00559-CR

                               Qusai Walid Zaqzouq, Appellant

                                                v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

                 FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY
                         NOS. CR-18-0530-D & CR-18-0893-D
                THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Under two separate indictments, Qusai Walid Zaqzouq was charged with two

counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, two counts of forgery involving an elderly

person, one count of theft, and one count of tampering with physical evidence. See Tex. Penal

Code §§ 22.02, 31.03, 32.21, 37.09. Zaqzouq entered into plea-bargain agreements with the

State in which he agreed to enter guilty pleas in exchange for the State dismissing one of the

forgery counts and recommending that he be placed on deferred-adjudication community

supervision for five years for the theft count and for ten years for all the remaining counts. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 42A.101, .103. Approximately sixteen months later, the State filed

motions to adjudicate alleging that he violated the terms of his community supervision by

committing the offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, committing the

offense of reckless driving, failing to obey all of the requirements imposed by the trial court and
his community-supervision officer, and leaving Hays County without permission from his

community-supervision officer. See id. art. 42A.301. During a hearing on the motions to

adjudicate, he pleaded not true to the allegations.

               At the hearing, a police officer testified that while he was stopped, he noticed “a

vehicle coming at [him] westbound in the eastbound lanes of traffic.” The officer related that he

attempted to block the path of the vehicle but that the driver “swerved to the right and drove

around” the officer and continued driving in “opposite lanes of traffic.” In addition, the officer

reported that the vehicle was travelling over 100 miles per hour and ran a red light.

               An officer from another police department testified that he responded to a call

regarding a police chase of a vehicle, radioed for assistance from a helicopter, and set out spike

strips in front of the vehicle. Further, the officer explained that the driver avoided the spike

strips by driving in oncoming lanes of traffic on the highway. In addition, the officer related that

he lost sight of the vehicle but that the helicopter pilot continued to follow the vehicle, that the

pilot observed the vehicle crash, and that the pilot reported seeing the driver fleeing on foot. The

officer described how the helicopter pilot directed him to where the driver was located and how

he then arrested the driver for evading in a motor vehicle. The officer identified Zaqzouq as

the driver of the vehicle. Zaqzouq’s community-supervision officer testified that he left Hays

County in March 2020 without providing the required notice.

               During the helicopter pilot’s testimony, a recording from the helicopter’s cameras

was admitted into evidence. The recording showed the vehicle driving at a high rate of speed on

a highway for approximately ten minutes and driving on the shoulder of the highway. Next, the

recording captured the vehicle leaving the highway and driving on a street for a few minutes

                                                  2
before crashing into a median. Further, the recording depicted the driver fleeing from the vehicle

on foot before the police caught up to him.

               When presenting his case, Zaqzouq elected to testify and explained that he broke

the law by driving in the manner that he did because he was being harassed and pursued by the

individuals who previously claimed that he stole from them. He also denied having committed

the underlying offenses and stated that he only agreed to plead guilty because his prior counsel

coerced him into entering the plea-bargain agreement.

               Following the hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked

Zaqzouq’s deferred-adjudication community supervision, and adjudicated him guilty.

Additionally, the court sentenced him as follows: two years’ confinement for the theft count

and six years’ imprisonment for the two aggravated-assault counts, the forgery count, and the

tampering count. See Tex. Penal Code § 12.33, .34, .35. He appeals the trial court’s judgments

adjudicating guilt.

               Zaqzouq’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed motions to withdraw

supported by briefs concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s

briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation

of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.            See

386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see

also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of

“assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed

review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Zaqzouq’s counsel has represented to

the Court that he provided copies of the motions and briefs to Zaqzouq; advised him of his right

to examine the appellate record, file pro se briefs, and pursue discretionary review following the

                                                3
resolution of the appeals in this Court; and provided him with the address of this Court and

a copy of the appellate record in these cases. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 &

n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Rodriguez has not filed a pro se brief challenging any of his

convictions, and the time for filing a brief has expired.

               We have independently reviewed the record and considered appellate counsel’s

briefs, and we have found nothing that might arguably support the appeals. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous and

without merit. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments

adjudicating guilt.

                                               __________________________________________
                                               Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Affirmed

Filed: April 28, 2023

Do Not Publish
*
 Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).

                                                  4