Court Opinion

ID: 2891414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 21:41:59.666917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:22.444001
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-05-0250-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

DECEMBER 2, 2005

______________________________

JOHN ZAVALA, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 396
TH
 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 0943395D; HON. GEORGE GALLAGHER, PRESIDING

________________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

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

 Appellant, John Zavala, appealed his convictions for arson and burglary of a habitation.  His appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an 
Anders
(footnote: 1) brief.  He certified that, after diligently searching the record, he found the appeal meritless.  Appellate counsel served his client with a copy of his brief and motion.  So too did he tell appellant of his conclusions and of appellant’s right to file a 
pro se
 response or brief and review the record
.
  This court also informed appellant of the same matters and directed him to file any response or brief he cared to by 
November 30, 2005.  To date, appellant has neither filed a response, brief, or request for an extension. 

Per 
Anders
, appellate counsel explained, in his brief, why the appeal was meritless.  We conducted our own review of the record to uncover potential error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to 
Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Like that of appellate counsel, our review uncovered none. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

 

                                               			Brian Quinn

          Chief Justice

 

Do not publish.                                  

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