Alan Zavala v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
Date FiledJuly 16, 2026
Docket10-25-00450-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00450-CR
Alan Zavala,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
12th District Court of Madison County, Texas
Judge David W. Moorman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 24-14450
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court found Alan Zavala violated six terms and conditions of
his community supervision for the felony offense of tampering or fabricating
physical evidence with an intent to impair. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09.
As a result, the trial court revoked his community supervision and assessed
his punishment at five years confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34.
This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Zavala’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief in support of the motion asserting that she has diligently reviewed the
appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s
brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance
with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has
performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at
1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all
the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386
U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346,
349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–
11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit”
when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S.
429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a
review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Alan Zavala v. The State of Texas Page 2
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Zavala is granted.
MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 16, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Motion granted
Do Not Publish
CR25
Alan Zavala v. The State of Texas Page 3