IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
JANUARY 21, 2003
______________________________RAYBORN ROBERT STEPHENSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee _________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 96,499; HON. PAMELA C. SIRMON, PRESIDING _______________________________
ORDER ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., QUINN, J. and BOYD, S.J. (1)
Rayborn Robert Stephenson, appellant, has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002).
sans-serif">IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
______________________________
DANIEL LUIS CANCINO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAM COUNTY;
NO. 4046; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Order
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Daniel Luis Cancino (appellant) appeals from his conviction for aggravated assault. His retained attorney has filed a motion to withdraw wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded there is no reversible error. The provisions of Anders v. California do not apply to retained counsel. See Torres v. State, 271 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008, no pet.). This is so because by securing retained counsel, the appellant has received all that Anders was designed to insure. Rivera v. State, 130 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). Nonetheless, like their counterparts who have been appointed, retained counsel also have an ethical obligation to refuse to pursue a frivolous appeal. Id. So, when counsel encounters such an appeal, he must inform the appellate court of it and seek leave to withdraw in compliance with Rule 6.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. Then, we need only address whether counsel complied with that rule. Id.
Again, appellant’s retained counsel at bar has told us that he reviewed the appellate record and discovered no arguable ground for reversal. Moreover, the motion to withdraw before us contains appellant’s name and last known address, a statement that a copy of the motion was delivered to appellant, and a statement that appellant was notified in writing of the right to object to the motion, as required by Rule 6.5. Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(a).
Therefore, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Furthermore, appellant is not required to file a brief or response. However, if appellant desires to file one pro se, he is ordered to do so no later than October 12, 2009. If appellant decides to file a response and needs to review the record, he will need to contact his appellate attorney to obtain access to it.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.