Harold Wayne Campa v. The State of TexasAppeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00433-CR HAROLD WAYNE CAMPA, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas Trial Court No. B19400-1302, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding July 7, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J.J. and BOYD, S.J.1 Harold Wayne Campa, appellant, appeals his conviction for Driving While Intoxicated. Appellant was tried and found guilty by a jury and was assessed five years in prison. Appellant s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders2 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent 1 Senior Justice John T. Boyd, sitting by assignment. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). to appellant informing him of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a pro se response. By letter dated May 16, 2014, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or response by June 16, 2014, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has been received. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed potential areas for appeal which included the indictment, pretrial discovery, a pretrial motion for continuance, motion to suppress a recorded statement, adverse rulings made at trial, jury selection and charge, sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction and the punishment assessed, and the denial of a motion for new trial. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concurred with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.3 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2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.
