Samuel Leo Zamagni v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 9, 2018
• Docket: 11-17-00304-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed August 9, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-17-00304-CR __________

SAMUEL LEO ZAMAGNI, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court Palo Pinto County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16214

MEMORANDUM OPINION The jury convicted Appellant, Samuel Leo Zamagni, of the offense of felony driving while intoxicated. Upon Appellant’s plea of true to the habitual-offender enhancement allegations, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for eighty years. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present in this appeal. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has filed a pro se brief in response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant makes various assertions in his response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.1 See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

2 The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 9, 2018 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.