In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00066-CR

ZACHERY RENE LAMAS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 242nd District Court Hale County, Texas, Trial Court No. B21040-1903, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding February 15, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count sexual assault of a child;1 because of that and prior convictions, he was sentenced to seventeen years of confinement. In his appeal, his counsel filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reflects that between December 2017 to February 2018, Appellant (23 years old) was engaged in a nonconsensual sexual relationship with B.G. (14 years old).

During that time, Appellant was living with B.G.’s family and working in her stepfather’s business. B.G. had been writing letters to her friends about her sexual relationship with Appellant, and her stepfather found the letters. B.G. confessed to her mother about the sexual relationship and testified at trial about sexual acts Appellant forced her to perform.

Moreover, B.G.’s mother testified that Appellant confessed to engaging in sex with B.G. despite knowing her age.

Appellant’s counsel has certified that after diligently searching the record, he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant’s counsel informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response and provided Appellant with copies of his motion to withdraw, his Anders brief, and the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. To date, Appellant has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and conducted an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. Like counsel, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.3

Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice

Do not publish.