TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00706-CR
Bruce Vincent Felder, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR-12-0739, THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Bruce Vincent Felder was convicted by a jury of criminal trespass of a
habitation.1 See Tex. Penal Code § 30.05. The trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at
confinement in the county jail for one year, but suspended imposition of the sentence and placed
appellant on community supervision for two years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 3.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal in this case is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California,
1
Appellant was charged by indictment with the felony offense of burglary of a habitation
with intent to commit assault. See Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1). However, the jury found
appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass of a habitation.
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to this Court that he provided copies of the
motion and brief to appellant along with a letter advising appellant of his right to examine the
appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766.
No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate
counsel’s brief and the trial proceeding, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We
agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the
appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction
is affirmed.
__________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: October 8, 2014
Do Not Publish
2