Donald Ray Rector v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 320th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-07-0463-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JULY 15, 2008
______________________________
DONALD RAY RECTOR, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 56,147-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING
______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Donald Ray Rector, Jr., appeals his conviction after a jury trial for possession of a
controlled substance in a drug free zone, enhanced. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed
a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief in which she certified that, after
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along
with her brief, appellate counsel attached 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. Appellant filed a response on June 24, 2008.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
four potential areas for appeal. They involve 1) the legal sufficiency of the evidence to
establish that appellant knowingly exercised actual control, management , or care over the
controlled substance, 2) the legal sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the offense
occurred in a drug free zone, 3) the enhancement of appellant’s punishment, and 4) the
loss of the signed jury charge. However, appellate counsel has satisfactorily explained why
each issue lacks merit.
We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), along with appellant’s response, and conclude that
no reversible error exists.
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Do not publish.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.
