CourtListener opinion 2881665

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

In The 

 Court of Appeals 

 Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana 

 ______________________________ 

 No. 06-02-00048-CR 

 ______________________________ 

 GARY LEE ALLEN, Appellant 

 V. 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court 

 Wood County, Texas 

 Trial Court No. 13,816-93 

 Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ. 

 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 On January 24, 1994, Gary Lee Allen pled guilty to four separate charges of forgery 
in a single hearing. The indictment in each case alleged Allen had two prior, sequential 
felony convictions, thereby raising the punishment range in each case to no fewer than 
twenty-five years, nor more than ninety-nine years, or imprisonment for life. See Tex. Pen. 
Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon 2003), § 32.21. (1) 
 
 On January 31, 2002, the trial court adjudicated Allen's guilt and sentenced him to 
twenty-five years' imprisonment in all four cases, with each sentence to be served 
concurrently. This appeal concerns only his conviction for forgery in trial court cause 
number 13,816-93. Each case was appealed separately, but the briefs in all four cases 
are substantively identical: Allen's counsel has reviewed the record and determined there 
are no nonfrivolous issues that may be raised; he asks that we allow him to withdraw as 
counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

 Since the briefs and arguments raised therein are identical in each appeal, for the 
reasons stated in Gary Lee Allen v. The State of Texas , No. 06-02-00045-CR, we likewise 
affirm the trial court's judgment. 

 Donald R. Ross 
 
 Justice 

 Date Submitted: April 24, 2003 
 
 Date Decided: April 25, 2003 

 Do Not Publish 
 
 1. Amended by Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. 
Laws 3586, 3643-44. 

HE MATTER OF THE 
 MARRIAGE OF 
 JOHN S. ZVARA AND 
 JOANNE M. GILLIS 

 On Appeal from the 245th Judicial District Court 
 Harris County, Texas 
 Trial Court No. 2001-13576 

 Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ. 
 Opinion by Justice Ross 

 O P I N I O N 
 
            John S. Zvara appeals from an order of enforcement rendered by the trial court 
directing him to turn over property pursuant to his divorce from Joanne M. Gillis. The 
problem, from Zvara's point of view, is that stocks were the property involved, and between 
the time of mediation in March 2002 and the date on which the court ordered Zvara to give 
Gillis her portion of the stocks, October 11, 2002, their value dropped drastically. 
            The underlying activities in this lawsuit occurred in the following sequence: 
 March 5, 2002:                    Mediated settlement agreement 
   
 May 10, 2002:                      Divorce decree signed by trial court (ordering Zvara to transfer 
two retirement accounts by Qualified Domestic Relations Order 
 (QDRO): 50% of Vanguard account as of March 5, 2002; and 
49% in Schwab account as of March 5, 2002) 
   
 August 26, 2002:                  Petition for enforcement filed 
 
 September 26- 
 October 9, 2002:                  Hearing held on motion 
   
 October 11, 2002:                Court renders judgment in telephone conference 
   
 October 25, 2002:                Enforcement order signed (ordering Zvara to pay specific sums 
of money to Gillis) 
   
 October 30, 2002:                Gillis' motion to set aside and correct enforcement order filed 
   
 November 15, 2002:            Corrected enforcement order signed 
   
 December 4, 2002:              Notice of appeal from the November 15 order of enforcement 
filed 
   
 December 6, 2002:              QDRO signed 
 
            Zvara does not attack the nature of the award or the procedure followed in obtaining 
the order but, in four points of error, contends: (1) there is no or insufficient evidence to 
support the monetary award and the court therefore erred by granting a monetary judgment 
to Gillis; (2) the written judgment did not conform to the oral rendition; (3) the clarification 
order and QDRO should be set aside because in those documents the trial court made 
substantive changes to the decree of divorce; and (4) the \clarification order and QDRO