Joe Peter Lozano A/K/A Joe Peter Lorano v. the State of Texas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed July 10, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-25-00117-CR __________

JOE PETER LOZANO A/K/A JOE PETER LORANO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas 1 Trial Court Cause No. 1783258

MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant, Joe Peter Lozano a/k/a Joe Peter Lorano, of murder and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eighty years in the

1 This appeal was transferred to this court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2025). Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b) (West Supp. 2025). Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel states that they professionally and conscientiously examined the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable grounds to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to (1) object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and (4) file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant did not file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. 2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 2

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE

July 10, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.