Opinion
No. 06-19-00102-CR
12-11-2019
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
After pleading guilty, without a plea agreement, to murdering 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. 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.
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.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice Date Submitted: December 2, 2019
Date Decided: December 11, 2019 Do Not Publish