Irene Elaine Maestas v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                       NO. 07-10-0074-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL B
    JULY 26, 2010
    ______________________________
    IRENE ELAINE MAESTAS,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    _________________________________
    FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF POTTER COUNTY;
    NO. 123,202-1; HON. W.F. “CORKY” ROBERTS, PRESIDING
    _______________________________
    Anders Opinion
    _______________________________
    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
    Irene Elaine Maestas (appellant) appeals her conviction for failing to report child
    abuse. Appellant’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with
    an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he
    concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel
    filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel’s belief that there was
    1
    See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744-45, 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967).
    no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated
    June 16, 2010, this court also notified appellant of her right to tender her own response
    and set July 16, 2010, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed.
    In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
    discussed one potential area for appeal. It included the sufficiency of the evidence.
    However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the evidence was sufficient to support
    appellant’s conviction.
    In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record to assess the
    accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error
    pursuant to Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 508
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so,
    we concur with counsel’s conclusions.
    Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2
    Brian Quinn
    Chief Justice
    Do not publish.
    2
    Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-10-00074-CR

Filed Date: 7/26/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015