NUMBERS 13-16-00191-CR &
13-16-00192-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
JOHN GIBBS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 176th District Court
of Harris County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
In appellate cause numbers 13-16-00191-CR and 13-16-192-CR, appellant John
Gibbs pleaded guilty to two separate counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
1 These causes are before the Court on transfer from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston
pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 73.001 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 49, 2017 R.S.).
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 49, 2017 R.S.). The trial
court sentenced Gibbs to twenty-five years’ confinement in both causes, which will run
concurrently. Gibbs’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Gibbs’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed with this Court in both causes a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that his review
of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. See id. 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, 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).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Gibbs’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Gibbs’s counsel has also informed this Court that Gibbs has
been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2)
provided with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed of his rights to file a pro se response,
review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we
2
conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided with a form motion for pro se access
to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20, 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 period of time has
passed, and Gibbs has not filed a pro se response.2
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 and counsel’s brief, and we have
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.3 See id. at 827–28 (“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 judgments of the trial court in each cause.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Gibbs’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 (Tex. App.—Dallas
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.)).
3 We note that there is a video marked State’s exhibit #4 in the record that we were unable to view
due to technical issues. However, the trial court sustained Gibbs’s objection to the video and did not
consider it when making its decision in these causes.
3
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. Within
five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgment to Gibbs and to 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).
/s/ Rogelio Valdez
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of August, 2017.
4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gibbs wish to seek further review of these cases
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. A 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