Jesus Eduardo Zarate v. the State of Texas
This text of Jesus Eduardo Zarate v. the State of Texas (Jesus Eduardo Zarate v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00293-CR
JESUS EDUARDO ZARATE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 110th District Court Floyd County, Texas Trial Court No. 4917, Honorable William P. Smith, Presiding
March 28, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Jesus Eduardo Zarate, was found guilty by a jury of the offense of
continuous sexual abuse of a child.1 The same jury also assessed punishment at forty
years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Appellant has perfected his appeal and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b)(1). Appellant’s retained counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders2 brief
in support of his assertion that the case presents no non-frivolous grounds for an appeal.
“The procedural safeguards of Anders and its progeny do not apply to retained attorneys
and we do not have the same supervisory role in guaranteeing the attorney’s
representation.” Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376, 379 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2000, no pet.). “This is so because by securing retained counsel, the appellant has
received all that Anders was designed to ensure.” Lopez v. State, 283 S.W.3d 479, 480
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.); Torres v. State, 271 S.W.3d 872, 873 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2008, no pet.). Nonetheless, like their appointed counterparts, retained counsel
also have an ethical obligation to refuse to pursue a frivolous appeal. Torres, 271 S.W.3d
at 873 (citing Rivera v. State, 130 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, no
pet.)). So, when retained counsel encounters such an appeal, he must inform the
appellate court of it and seek leave to withdraw in compliance with Rule 6.5 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. In such a circumstance, we need only address whether
counsel complied with that rule. Id. at 874; Rivera, 130 S.W.3d at 458.
Here, Appellant’s retained counsel has represented to the Court that he reviewed
the appellate record and discovered no arguable grounds for reversal. Further, our review
of counsel’s motion to withdraw and letters sent by counsel to his client reveals that
counsel has provided the party’s name and last known address and has disclosed
applicable deadlines. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5. Counsel has represented that he has
provided Appellant a copy of the motion to withdraw, Anders brief in support thereof, and
2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 appellate record. He also informed Appellant of his right to object to the motion to
withdraw. See id. The Court has also informed Appellant of his right to respond to
counsel’s pending motion to withdraw, permitting Appellant until January 2, 2025, to
respond. To date, Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s motion or corresponded
with the Court in any manner.
We know of no rule that obligates us to retain an appeal on our docket which
Appellant has represented, through his hired attorney, is frivolous simply because the
appellant failed to respond to his attorney’s motion to withdraw or the accompanying brief.
Torres, 271 S.W.3d at 874. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, we undertook an
independent review of the appellate record to determine whether counsel’s representation
regarding the frivolousness of the appeal was accurate. In so doing, we uncovered no
arguable issue warranting reversal of the trial court’s judgment. See id.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s pending motion to withdraw and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. We direct retained counsel to send Appellant a copy of this opinion and
judgment and notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in
compliance with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 48.4.
Judy C. Parker Justice
Do not publish.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jesus Eduardo Zarate v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesus-eduardo-zarate-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.