Irene Elaine Maestas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-10-0074-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B JULY 26, 2010 ______________________________ IRENE ELAINE MAESTAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 123,202-1; HON. W.F. CORKY ROBERTS, PRESIDING _______________________________ Anders Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Irene Elaine Maestas (appellant) appeals her conviction for failing to report child abuse. Appellant s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel s belief that there was 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated June 16, 2010, this court also notified appellant of her right to tender her own response and set July 16, 2010, as the deadline to do so. To date, no response has been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal. It included the sufficiency of the evidence. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the evidence was sufficient to support appellant s conviction. In addition, we have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from this opinion. 2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.
