Anthony David Drager v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-08-0074-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
______________________________
ANTHONY DAVID DRAGER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 57,042-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Anders Opinion
_________________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Anthony David Drager (appellant) appeals his conviction for conspiracy to engage
in organized criminal activity. He entered an open plea of guilty and, after a hearing to the
trial court on punishment, was sentenced to twenty years confinement on each count.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief, wherein she certifies that, after diligently searching the record, she
concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, she has filed 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
September 18, 2008, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own response
by October 20, 2008, if he wished to do so. Appellant has filed a response.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
two potential areas for appeal including defects in the indictment and ineffectiveness of
counsel. Upon her final analysis, counsel determined that no reversible error existed.
Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record along with appellant’s response to
assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error,
reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) and concluded the same.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2
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.
