Document Info

DocketNumber: 06-19-00102-CR

Filed Date: 12/11/2019

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/11/2019

  •                     In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-19-00102-CR
    ZACHARY MCDANIEL, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 115th District Court
    Marion County, Texas
    Trial Court No. F14915
    Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    After pleading guilty, without a plea agreement, to murdering 1 his mother—who was a
    methamphetamine and verbal abuser—Zachary McDaniel submitted his sentencing to the trial
    court and received eighty years’ imprisonment.
    McDaniel’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has found
    no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
    history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court
    proceedings. Providing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
    arguable grounds to be advanced, counsel has met the requirements of the law. See Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 406 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High
    v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion
    with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
    On July 31, 2019, counsel mailed to McDaniel copies of the brief, the appellate record, and
    the motion to withdraw. McDaniel was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se
    response. On October 25, 2019, McDaniel’s filed his pro se response.
    We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
    the entire appellate record and McDaniels pro se response and, like counsel, have determined that
    no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
    1
    TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02.
    
    2 Ohio App. 2005
    ). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must
    affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
    Id. We affirm
    the judgment of the trial court. 2
    Josh R. Morriss, III
    Chief Justice
    Date Submitted:            December 2, 2019
    Date Decided:              December 11, 2019
    Do Not Publish
    2
    Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request
    to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    . No substitute counsel
    will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
    he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary
    review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
    or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must
    be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with
    the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
    3