Bernice Davalos Rios v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 108th District Court of Potter County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-0092-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011
BERNICE DAVALOS RIOS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_____________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 61,480-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, PRESIDING
Memorandum Opinion
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Bernice Davalos Rios was convicted after a jury trial of theft of clothing in an
amount of less than $1,500 with two prior convictions for theft and sentenced by the
court to eighteen months in jail and a fine of $1,000. Appellant’s appointed counsel has
filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certified that he
has diligently searched the record and concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along
with his brief, counsel attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a brief
or response pro se. By letter dated August 4, 2011, this court also informed appellant of
her right to tender her own response and set September 6, 2011, as the deadline to do
so. To date, we have received neither a response nor a request for extension of time to
file a response.
In compliance with Anders, appellate counsel has discussed three potential
areas for appeal. They include 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) whether the length
of punishment was excessive, and 3) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, he
has explained why none of those arguments have merit. We have also conducted our
own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and
to discover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
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Do not publish.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.
