In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-20-00113-CR
BRADLEY ROSSER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 440th District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-24734, Honorable Grant Kinsey, Presiding
July 14, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Appellant, Bradley Rosser, was charged with assault on a family member by
impeding the victim’s breathing or circulation, enhanced by a prior assault on a family
member conviction.1 Appellant and the State entered into a plea bargain agreement by
which appellant would plead guilty and the State would drop the enhancement allegation
and recommend that appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2020).
for a period of two years. The trial court accepted this agreement. During the period of
community supervision, the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication of guilt alleging
that appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision by possessing
methamphetamine. Appellant pled “true” to the alleged violation without the benefit of a
plea bargain. After hearing evidence, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea,
adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to five years’ confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.
Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record
and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the
record presents no reversible error. In a letter to appellant, counsel notified him of his
motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and motion for
pro se access to the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se
response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has
not filed a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error
may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently
examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found
no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300
(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we
conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review.
Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 The judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is
ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted
counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
3