Saul Zamora v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 30, 2007
• Docket: 12-06-00415-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                                                                        NO. 12-06-00415-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SAUL ZAMORA,      §                      APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Saul Zamora appeals the revocation of his community supervision and subsequent conviction of aggravated assault and escape, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years for each conviction.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated assault and another count of escape, to which he pleaded “guilty” on each count.  The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for ten years. 

            Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms of his community supervision.  Appellant pleaded “true” to some of the State’s allegations, but pleaded “not true” to others.  Subsequently, a hearing was held on the State’s motion, and the trial court found that Appellant had violated certain terms of his probation as alleged.  The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty on each count, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for ten years on each count.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.¹  We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered August 30, 2007.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.