Reynaldo Reyes v. The State of TexasAppeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2
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.
