NUMBER 13-11-00422-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
STEVEN PAUL SKINNER A/K/A STEVEN
SKINNER A/K/A STEVEN PAUL SKINNER, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 252nd District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant, Steven Paul Skinner a/k/a Steven Skinner a/k/a Steven Paul Skinner ,1
pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, hydrocodone, in an amount
1
We note that this is the exact style used by the trial court in its judgment and that it includes the
modifier "a/k/a" even though the two names cited in the judgment are identical. Neither appellant nor the
State contend that the wrong party was charged in this case.
equal to or greater than 200 grams but less than 400 grams, and was placed on
deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years. See TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.117(d) (West 2010). On June 6, 2011, the trial court
held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision.
Appellant pled “true” to counts 3, 7, and 8 of the State’s motion. The trial court found
those counts to be true, revoked appellant’s probation, and sentenced appellant to a
twelve-year prison term. Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief with this Court,
reviewing the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal in this cause and concluding that the
appeal is frivolous.2 We affirm.
I. ANDERS
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s counsel
has filed a brief with this Court stating that he has found no reversible error committed
by the trial court and no arguable ground of error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. 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. Counsel’s brief sets out, in great detail, relevant portions of the record that
may provide potentially appealable issues. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407
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).
2
This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).
2
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
has forwarded a copy of his brief to appellant and has informed appellant of his right to
review the record and to file a pro se response.3 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
an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed 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 brief;
however, we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (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.”); 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 attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as 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
3
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe 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
(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 counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is
ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and advise him of his
right to file a petition for discretionary review.4 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).
__________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the
5th day of April, 2012.
4
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.
Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
4