In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-12-00175-CR
FOSTER AGERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10-0176X
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Foster Agers appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04 (West 2011). Agers pled guilty1 without a plea agreement and
signed a written stipulation of the evidence. The trial court found Agers guilty and sentenced
him to six years’ imprisonment.
Agers’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
proceedings in detail. He has set up several potential arguments, and then explains in detail why
each fails to show a reversible error. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets
the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Agers on December 17, 2012, informing Agers of
his right to file a pro se response and to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with
this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Agers has neither filed a pro se
response nor requested an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree that no genuinely arguable issues support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
1
The trial court admonished Agers both orally and in writing.
2
In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit
and is frivolous, and, if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: February 20, 2013
Date Decided: February 21, 2013
Do Not Publish
2
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should
appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or
the date the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104,
effective Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3