Anthony Ray Montoya v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0227-CR
NO. 07-05-0228-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
MARCH 2, 2006
______________________________
ANTHONY RAY MONTOYA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 41,316-D & NO. 41,317-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Anthony Ray Montoya was convicted of possession of a controlled
substance and assessed a six year sentence and a $2,000 fine, suspended for ten years,
in cause number 41,316-D. He was also convicted of possession of marihuana and
assessed a six year sentence, suspended for ten years, in cause number 41,317-D. A
hearing was held on the State’s motions to revoke community supervision for violations of
the conditions thereof. Appellant’s plea of true to the State’s allegations resulted in the trial
court revoking community supervision and imposing the original sentence of six years
confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a
motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the
record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.).
Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has candidly discussed why, under
the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the
brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit.
In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the
record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. The Clerk of this Court has also
advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant filed
a response; however, the State did not favor us with a brief.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine
whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. After reviewing the
record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response, we agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgments
are affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
