Zina Lapaz Bishop v. The State of Texas Appeal from 371st District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-15-00125-CR ZINA LAPAZ BISHOP APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1384629D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant Zina Lapaz Bishop attempts to appeal from her conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance by fraud, namely: codeine. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.129(a)(4) (West Supp. 2014). Bishop entered an open plea of guilty, and the trial court sentenced her to eight months’ confinement in state jail. Pursuant to the written plea admonishments that were 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. signed by Bishop and her attorney, Bishop waived her right to appeal. The trial court’s amended certification states that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” On July 31, 2015, we notified Bishop that this appeal could be dismissed based on the trial court’s certification unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response on or before August 10, 2015, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has been filed. In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).2 /s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: September 3, 2015 2 Before we received the trial court’s amended certification, Bishop’s counsel filed “Appellant’s Brief filed in part pursuant to Anders v. California” and a motion to withdraw. Because we dismiss the appeal based on the trial court’s certification, we need not consider Bishop’s counsel’s brief, and we deny Bishop’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as moot. See Garcia v. State, No. 04-0400716-CR, 2005 WL 709143, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 30, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal based on trial court’s certification, not considering the Anders brief, and denying counsel’s motion to withdraw as moot). 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.
