Paul Daniel Zipper v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 03-24-00547-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00547-CR NO. 03-24-00548-CR NO. 03-24-00549-CR

Paul Daniel Zipper, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. B-22-0929-SA, NO. B-22-0647-SA, NO. B-22-0648-SA THE HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Paul Daniel Zipper pleaded guilty to murder, a first-degree felony, see Tex. Penal

Code § 19.02(c); aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony, see id.

§ 22.02(a)(2); tampering/fabricating physical evidence with intent to impair a human corpse, a

second-degree felony, see id. § 37.09(c); evading arrest with a vehicle, a third-degree felony, see

id. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). After a bench trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Zipper to fifty

years’ imprisonment for murder, twenty years’ imprisonment for aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon, twenty years’ imprisonment for tampering with evidence, and ten years’

imprisonment for evading arrest.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of

the motion and brief to appellant, provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the appellate

record, and advised appellant of his rights to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and

pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. See Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

Appellant filed a pro se response with the Court on October 28, 2025.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including the record of

the plea and sentencing proceedings below, appellate counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se

response, and we find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at

766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel

that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 The trial court’s judgment of

conviction is affirmed.

1 Below, the trial court appointed the Concho Valley Regional Public Defender’s Office to represent Zipper. Appellate counsel Don Payne, previously of the Concho Valley Regional Public Defender’s Office, filed the original Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Later, attorney Elizabeth Berry filed a notice of substitution, explaining the Don Payne was no longer employed by the Concho Valley Regional Public Defender’s Office and that Berry would be substituted as lead counsel. Berry then filed a motion to withdraw, asking that this Court allow the Concho Valley Regional Public Defender’s Office as a whole to withdraw from representation after reviewing Payne’s Anders brief.

We grant Payne’s motion to withdraw, which was filed in Payne’s capacity as an assistant public defender with the Concho Valley Regional Public Defender’s Office. Because 2 __________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump, and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: February 20, 2026

Do Not Publish

granting this motion releases the Concho Valley Public Defender’s Office from its representation of Zipper in this appeal, we dismiss Berry’s motion to withdraw as moot. 3