NUMBER 13-13-00400-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
SCOTT SAMUEL MEYER, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 207th District Court of
Comal County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
A jury found appellant, Scott Samuel Meyer, guilty of theft under $1500, with two
prior convictions, a state-jail felony offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §
31.03(e)(3)(4)(D) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). At punishment, appellant
pleaded “true” to six enhancement paragraphs, enhancing his punishment level to a
second-degree felony, and the jury assessed punishment at eighteen years’
imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.425, 12.33 (West, Westlaw through
2013 3d C.S.). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF1
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support
thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has
concluded that there is no reversible error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has
informed this Court that he has (1) examined the record and has found no arguable
grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served copies of the brief and motion to withdraw on
appellant, and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After several extensions granted by this Court, appellant filed a
pro se response on February 18, 2014. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
1 This appeal was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals to this Court pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West,
Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.).
2 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
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s
pro se response, and find that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and
reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
his appellate counsel. 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.) (“If 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 the motion to withdraw.
We order that counsel must, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a
copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition
for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
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. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4, see TEX. R. APP. P.
68.4.
3
at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
________________________
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
8th day of May, 2014.
4
Scott Samuel Meyer v. State
Combined Opinion