NUMBER 13-14-00221-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
DANIEL BARRON, SR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant, Daniel Barron Sr., pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one
count of assault-family violence, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(a) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). As called for by the
agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, suspended
the sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for three years with a non-
probated fine of $1,000. Less than a year later, the State filed a motion to revoke in which
it alleged, among other things, that appellant did not comply with the conditions of his
supervision that required him to enroll in and complete the Batterer’s Intervention
Program and to have no contact with the complainant in his case. Appellant pleaded “not
true” to the allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court found that all of the State’s
allegations except those alleging nonpayment of fees to be true and imposed the original
sentence of ten years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—
Institutional Division. As discussed below, appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw accompanied by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the
record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief
need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has:
(1) notified the appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw;
(2) provided the appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed the appellant of his
right to file a pro se response,1 review the record preparatory to filing that response, and
seek discretionary review if the Court concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4)
provided the appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record,
lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date and including the mailing address for
the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate time has passed, and
appellant has not filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record or a motion for
extension of time to do so. No pro se response was filed, and the State has also not filed
a brief.
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,2 and we have
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2 Counsel informed us that he specifically considered: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction
3
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827–28 (“Due to the
nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the 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. We have found no reversible error in the record. We accordingly affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he
must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered
to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of
his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In
over the case; (2) whether any of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, if incorrect, rose to the level of
reversible error; (3) whether there were any irregularities in the closing arguments; (4) whether the evidence
was sufficient to support revocation; and (5) whether there were any irregularities in the sentence. Counsel
concluded that none of these issues were meritorious, and we agree.
3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Effective September
1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
5th day of February, 2015.
5