Maggie Zamora Hale v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed August 13, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-25-00221-CR

__________

MAGGIE ZAMORA HALE, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court Mitchell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 8631

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Maggie Zamora Hale, pled guilty to the offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, a first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West Supp. 2025). A jury

2

assessed Appellant’s punishment at sixty years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the trial court sentenced her accordingly.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines 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 copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders 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 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and the brief, and we conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1

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

3

(“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”).

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

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

August 13, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.