Buford Meadows v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 31st District Court of Wheeler County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-05-0354-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B MAY 10, 2006 ______________________________ BUFORD WILLIAM MEADOWS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY; NO. 4163; HON. STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. After a jury trial, appellant Buford William Meadows was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 20 years imprisonment. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant's appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief 1 Se e Anders v. California, 386 U .S. 738, 744- 45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to appeal pro se. By letter dated March 29, 2006, this court notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by April 28, 2006, if he wished to do so. The latter date has passed without the filing of either a motion for extension or a response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential grounds of error and then explained why they were meritless. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record 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 that none existed. 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 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2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.
