NUMBER 13-13-00078-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
JAMES LEE SAULTERS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 54th District Court
of McLennan County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
The State indicted appellant James Lee Saulters for aggravated assault, a second-
degree felony enhanced to a first-degree felony because the State alleged that appellant
used a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and caused serious bodily
injury to a person who was in a dating relationship with appellant at the time.1 See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a), (b)(1) (West 2011). Appellant pleaded guilty but elected for
a jury to assess his punishment. The jury assessed punishment at thirty years’
imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division and a
$10,000 fine. This appeal followed.2
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to
withdraw with this Court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which to base an
appeal. 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, 406 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).
In compliance with High v. State, 507 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), 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 that
1 Specifically, the State alleged that appellant shot the complainant, a fifteen-year-old girl, in the
head following an argument.
2 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to a
docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West 2013).
2
he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal 3;
(2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3)
informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 4 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than a sufficient amount of time has passed, and appellant
has not responded by filing a pro se response.
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, including counsel’s appellate brief,
and we have found no reversible error. 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
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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney requests permission from this
Court to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re
3 Counsel informs us that he specifically considered whether: (1) the court properly admonished
appellant before accepting his plea; (2) appellant’s plea was voluntary; (3) appellant was mentally
competent to enter a guilty plea; (4) there was any error in admitting evidence during the punishment phase;
(5) the length of appellant’s sentence violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment; and
(6) appellant’s trial counsel performed effectively.
4 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.)).
3
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. Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s
judgment to appellant within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion and to advise
appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the court of criminal
appeals.5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In 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
6th day of March, 2014.
5 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 id. R. 68.3. Any
petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4