Alan Zavala v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: July 16, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00450-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00450-CR

Alan Zavala, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 12th District Court of Madison County, Texas Judge David W. Moorman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 24-14450

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Alan Zavala violated six terms and conditions of

his community supervision for the felony offense of tampering or fabricating

physical evidence with an intent to impair. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09.

As a result, the trial court revoked his community supervision and assessed

his punishment at five years confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34.

This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Zavala’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that she has diligently reviewed the

appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s

brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance

with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has

performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at

1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346,

349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–

11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit”

when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S.

429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a

review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be

wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Alan Zavala v. The State of Texas Page 2 Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Zavala is granted.

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 16, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish CR25

Alan Zavala v. The State of Texas Page 3