In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00003-CR
REYNALDO REYES, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A19242-1209, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
MAY 10, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Reynaldo Reyes appeals his conviction of burglary of a habitation. He pled guilty
to the offense and was sentenced by a jury to twelve years confinement and a fine of
$2000.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders 1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has
concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has provided
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no
reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated April 5,
2013, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by May 6,
2013, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been filed.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal, which included the guilty plea, the sufficiency of
the evidence, the range of punishment, and the jury charge. However, he has
explained why the issues are without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review
of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover
any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) and have found none.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2