Court Opinion

ID: 9371422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 09:11:04.096354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:27.857186
License: Public Domain

In The
                                   Court of Appeals
                          Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
                                          No. 07-22-00066-CR

                              ZACHERY RENE LAMAS, APPELLANT

                                                    V.

                                THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                              On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
                                       Hale County, Texas,
                  Trial Court No. B21040-1903, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding

                                          February 15, 2023
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                          Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

       Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count sexual assault of a child;1 because

of that and prior convictions, he was sentenced to seventeen years of confinement. In

his appeal, his counsel filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant

counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

          1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2), (f) (a second-degree felony).     Punishment was
enhanced by a prior conviction for the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2014. See
id. at § 12.42(b).

       2   See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
       The record reflects that between December 2017 to February 2018, Appellant (23

years old) was engaged in a nonconsensual sexual relationship with B.G. (14 years old).

During that time, Appellant was living with B.G.’s family and working in her stepfather’s

business. B.G. had been writing letters to her friends about her sexual relationship with

Appellant, and her stepfather found the letters. B.G. confessed to her mother about the

sexual relationship and testified at trial about sexual acts Appellant forced her to perform.

Moreover, B.G.’s mother testified that Appellant confessed to engaging in sex with B.G.

despite knowing her age.

       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

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. 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 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138

                                             2
(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.3

                                                Conclusion

        The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                                   Lawrence M. Doss
                                                                       Justice

Do not publish.

        3 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.

                                                      3