Jorge Castillo Zulayka A/K/A Jorge C. Zulayka v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NOS. 2-07-179-CR
2-07-190-CR
JORGE CASTILLO ZULAYKA APPELLANT
A/K/A JORGE C. ZULAYKA
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
A jury convicted Appellant Jorge Castillo Zulayka a/k/a Jorge C. Zulayka
of aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon, and the trial
court sentenced him to forty years’ confinement. Zulayka also entered an open
plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial court
1
… See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
found Zulayka guilty of that offense and sentenced him to twenty years’
confinement. Zulayka pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs contained
in the indictments.
Zulayka’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and
motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 2 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible
grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that arguably might support the
appeal. Zulayka was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he did not
do so.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of
the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the
appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.— Fort W orth
1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Because
Zulayka entered an open plea of guilty to the unlawful possession of a firearm
charge, our independent review for potential error is limited to potential
2
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
2
jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness of Zulayka’s plea, error that is not
independent of and supports the judgment of guilt, and error occurring after
entry of the guilty plea. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2003); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666–67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Our independent review for potential error in Zulayka’s aggravated assault case
is broader. See Ford v. State, Nos. 02-06-00191-CR, 02-06-00192-CR, 2007
WL 3408622, at *3–5 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15, 2007, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (not designated for publication) (reviewing jurisdiction, voir dire, evidentiary
sufficiency, effective assistance of counsel, jury charge, punishment, and
sentencing).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree
with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. We find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.
PER CURIAM
PANEL F: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 3, 2008
3