CHRISTOPHER QUARTARO v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 148th District Court of Nueces County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-06-00656-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG CHRISTOPHER QUARTARO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza Appellant, Christopher Quartaro, was indicted by a Nueces County grand jury on September 22, 2006 with one count of first-degree murder and one count of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle, a state jail felony. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 19.02(b)(1), (2), (c) (Vernon 2003); id. § 38.04(a), (b)(1) (Vernon 2003). On November 1, 2006, a jury found Quartaro guilty and sentenced him to life in prison with a $10,000.00 fine for the murder charge and two years imprisonment with a $10,000.00 fine for the charge of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle. Quartaro now appeals the judgment of the trial court. We affirm. I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V . CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Quartaro s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yields no meritorious issue[s] to bring forward for review. Counsel s brief meets the requirements of Anders, as it presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief on appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3. No pro se brief has been filed. II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the 2 opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, Quartaro s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We grant his motion to withdraw. We further order counsel to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and the availability of discretionary review. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam). DORI CONTRERAS GARZA, Justice Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 3rd day of July, 2008. 3
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.
