COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
CHANNING MURRY, §
No. 08-13-00356-CR
Appellant, §
Appeal from the
v. §
394th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
of Presidio County, Texas
Appellee. §
(TC# 3201)
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Channing Murry appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of continuous sexual
abuse of young child as charged in the indictment, and the assessment of 40 years’ incarceration in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After being indicted, Murry entered a plea of not guilty before the jury. At trial, the State
presented evidence from the Child’s sister that she witnessed her stepfather, Appellant, sitting
naked in a chair with his hand on the Child’s head, which was going up and down on his erect
penis. The Child’s mother testified that the Child told her that Appellant would put her in bed
with him naked and would touch her breasts and vagina. The Child testified that when the kids
stayed with Appellant, he would take her to his room and make her rub his penis and suck on it
until white stuff came out. Appellant threatened to hurt her if she told anyone. This went on for
a long time, even after she and her sister told their grandmother. After Appellant was arrested and
informed of the charge, he told an arresting officer that he was not worried because the kids would
never testify against him.
A unanimous jury found Appellant guilty and assessed punishment at forty years’
confinement.
ANDERS BRIEF
Murry’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed an Anders brief in support of his
motion to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [panel
opinion] 1978)(adopting the Anders procedure); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
509-11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). Pursuant to Anders, an attorney appointed to represent the
appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction has no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on
appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Counsel is thus permitted to withdraw after
informing the court of his conclusion and the effort he made in arriving at that conclusion. Id.
In this case, Murry’s attorney on appeal thoroughly searched the record and concluded that
any issue raised on appeal would be frivolous and without merit. Counsel states that after
reviewing the entire record, he concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to raise. In accordance
with the Anders’ requirements, counsel has moved to withdraw. Counsel certifies that he sent a
copy of his Motion to Withdraw to Appellant at the Tulia Facility on the 15th day of April, 2014.
Counsel’s brief and Motion to Withdraw present a thorough and professional evaluation of
2
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced; therefore it meets
Anders’ requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Counsel properly notified
Murry of the Anders brief and provided him with a copy, advised him of his right to examine the
appellate record and file a pro se brief, and has informed this Court, in writing that he performed
the foregoing requirements. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).
The Court has also notified Appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se brief.
Murry has not filed a pro se brief.
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
When counsel files a proper Anders brief, the court of appeals must then conduct its own
review of the record to ascertain if there are any arguable grounds for the appeal. See Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have thoroughly reviewed both the record
and counsel’s brief and agree with counsel’s professional assessment that an appeal is frivolous
and without merit. Because there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal,
a further discussion of the arguable grounds advanced in counsel’s Anders brief would add nothing
to the jurisprudence of the State.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice
February 18, 2015
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3