Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App. 1995). · Go Syfert
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
742 citation events (711 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Aaron Alejandro Ramirez v. the State of Texas (txctapp3, 2026-04-02) · Strongest negative: Jason Lynn Nichols v. State (texapp, 2013-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Jason Lynn Nichols v. State (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Jeffery, 903 S.W.2d at 779-80 ; see also Ezernack v. State, No. 12-01-00213-CR, 2002 WL 1610028 , at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 17, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication); but see Jeffery, 903 S.W.2d at 780 (granting counsel‟s motion to withdraw and remanding for appointment of new appellate counsel based on omissions in counsel‟s brief).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aaron Alejandro Ramirez v. the State of Texas
txctapp3 · 2026 · confidence medium
Ramirez, 2025 WL 2797903 , at *1-2; see also Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 (“Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may the court of appeals address the merits of the issues raised.”); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting in Anders case that there was discrepancy between punishment that was orally pronounced and punishment in written judgment and remanding case to trial court to appoint new counsel to file brief for appellant that addressed punishment issue and any other grounds that might support appeal), overruled on other grounds …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Floyd Stevenson, Sr. v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ervin Jose Osorio Miranda v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. at *1–2 (citing Marsh v. State, 959 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no pet.); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Heidi Nicole Denman v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ricky Allen Albright v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (citing McCoy v. Ct. App. of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 437 , 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1901 , 100 L.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of M.W., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
App. 2006) (stating that if we believe appellate counsel has not adequately discharged his constitutional duty to review the record for any arguable error, we must then “abate the appeal and return the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel”); Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317 , 320 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (abating appeal and remanding cause to trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel after stating counsel’s failure to discuss objection to certain evidence and trial court’s overruling of the objection showed that counsel failed to make…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert Jessie Morales v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Sam, 467 S.W.3d at 688 ; Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Juan Manuel Arevalos v. State
Tex. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.); see also Celaya v. State, No. 05-18-00391-CR, 2020 WL 4251249 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 24, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (stating that this Court “has grown weary of pro forma Anders briefs that do not reflect that appellate counsel has conducted a conscientious and thorough review of the law and the facts in full compliance with the requirements of Anders.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gerald Jefferson Munoz Montano v. State
Tex. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ; Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in the Interest of N.F.M. and S.R.M.
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
The dissent’s position (1) is irreconcilable with the common understanding of the term “professional evaluation”; (2) violates High’s mandate: [We] will not accept [Anders] briefs unless they discuss the evidence adduced at trial . . . refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court’s ruling, and discuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court . . . . 573 S.W.2d at 813 (emphasis added); (3) overlooks this court’s requirement that an Anders brief must contai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnathon Ramey v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
POTENTIAL GROUND OF ERROR ..................................................... 18 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - APPELLANT ...................................................... 27 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 27 Appellant Ramey’s Anders Appeal Brief Page iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Agbogwe v. State, 41…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnathon Ramey v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
POTENTIAL GROUND OF ERROR ..................................................... 19 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - APPELLANT ...................................................... 28 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ……………………………………………..28 Appellant Ramey’s Anders Appeal Brief Page iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miguel Guerrero Reyes v. State
Tex. · 2018 · confidence medium
Counsel has also filed with this Court a Motion to Withdraw as Court Appointed Counsel on Appeal in accordance with the procedures and standards set out in Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 6 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gonzales, Jose Iii
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no jaet.) ("[I]f an attorney believes thei appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cedric Jamar Hill v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Houston Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone 903.938.4555 ATTORNEY ON APPEAL ONLY TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of the Case P. 1 Oral Argument Notice P. 1 Issues Presented P. 1 Statement of the Facts P. 2 Issue #One P.2 Issue # Two P. 3 Issue #3 P.3 Issue #4 P.3 Summary of the Argument P. 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) P. 4 Goghian v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806 , 811 (5th Cir. 1988) P. 4 Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.)P. 6 Johnson v. State. 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, pet.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Alan Weatherford v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Austin, Texas 78701 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)………………................. 24, 25, 29 Blanco v. State, 771 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.)..................................................................................................................... 27 Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988) ..........................................25 Dinnery v. State, 592 S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (opinion on rehearing). .....................................................................…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Justin Wayne Parris v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App – Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lorenza Andre Sam v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Graham Jay Sonnenberg v. State
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1995, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 , 645- 646 (Tex. App. — Waco 1994, pet. ref'd) The motion to withdraw must also be accompanied by an exhibit showing that counsel provided the appellant with a copy of the Anders brief and informed the appellant that he or she has a right to review the record and file a pro se brief.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randy Jay Hofstetter v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
App. 1974); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jon Michael Miranda v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
App. 1978); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, order); Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Uribe v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
App. 1978); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, order); Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Hall v. State
Tex. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
App. 1978); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, order); Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Andres Gilberto Flores v. State
Tex. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
App. 1978); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, order); Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jimmy Evans Gore v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). 3 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.) (noting that A[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hudson Pharris v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Marsh v. State, 959 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1996, no pet.); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hudson Pharris v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Marsh v. State, 959 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1996, no pet.); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Edward Shetters, Jr. v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in the Interest of K.B.R.R.K., a Child
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
App. 2008) (quoting W ilson v. State, 955 S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–W aco 1997, no pet.)). 3 903 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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor Evan Crockett v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Luis Soto v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larry Miller v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Deleon v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Perez v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ismael Valadez Salinas v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronnie Vela v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ezzat Kalo Sido v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alfonso Cirlos v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zachary Yancey v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; s ee 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.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in the Matter of the Marriage of Peggy Collins and Ricky Tipton
Tex. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hudson Lee Pharries (appellant) appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. Â Appellant plead guilty to both indictments without an agreement as to punishment. Â H is court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), therein asserting that a review of the record shows no reversible error. Â The appellate record in this cause, however, is missing a portion of the reporter's record and clerkÂ’s record. Â Specifically, the portion missing in the reporter�…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) in Re David A. Schulman v. the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Judicial District
Tex. Crim. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
It is “merely one method of satisfying the requirements of the Constitution for indigent criminal appeals.” 18 Texas is free to adopt other procedures as long as they meet federal constitutional requirements.19 Although Texas may choose to adopt a different mechanism for dealing with frivolous appeals, it has thus far followed the Anders procedure.20 record.”). 15 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (noting that the attorney must furnish his indigent client with a copy of the Anders brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal,” and that defendant may “rai…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ivan Guerra Badillo v. State
Tex. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
"By not filling a motion to withdraw, appellate counsel exhibited a basic, and common misunderstanding about Anders cases." See Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perryman v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Edward Reveteriano v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Marsh v. State , 959 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1996, no pet.); Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ybarra v. State
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Billy Wayne Ezernack v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1995, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
But see High v. State, 962 S.W.2d 53 , 54 & n. 1 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 964 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (reversing because of the trial court's failure to admonish the defendant concerning the range of punishment before accepting the defendant’s guilty plea, but refusing to consider other issues raised by the appellant in a pro se response). 9 .Courts have abated to the trial court for appointment of new counsel in the following cases: Manoy v. State, 7 S.W.3d 771, 774 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1999, no pet.); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 28…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mason v. State
Tex. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Marsh v. State, 959 S.W.2d 224, 225 (TexApp.—Dallas 1996, no pet.); Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Manoy v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1995, no pet.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ervin JEFFERY, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
05-92-01427-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Mar 24, 1995.
903 S.W.2d 776
1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 1835
1995 WL 141121
Mark C. Stoltz, Dallas, for appellant., Juan Suarez, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for State.
Lagarde, Chapman, James.
Cited by 706 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

LAGARDE, Justice.

This case is before us on the motion of appellant’s appointed counsel to withdraw as counsel for appellant pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Appellate counsel represents Ervin Jeffery, who is appealing his conviction for delivery of cocaine. In the trial court, appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty. After finding him guilty, the trial court assessed his punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment. The trial court then sentenced appellant in open court to twenty years’ imprisonment. The written judgment, however, shows that the trial court sentenced appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine.

STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

In its brief challenging appellant’s entitlement to a free statement of facts, [1] the State requested that we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal. Appellant had thirty days from the date that sentence was imposed to file his notice of appeal. TexR.App.P. 41(b)(1). The record shows that the trial court imposed the sentence on June 8, 1992. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 16, 1992. Appellant filed a second, and untimely, notice of appeal on July 16, 1992. The State requests that we dismiss the appeal because appellant did not file a notice of appeal until July 16, 1992. Because appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on June 16,1992, we deny the State’s request.

FRIVOLOUS APPEALS

Appellant’s attorney filed a brief concluding that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. When appellate counsel filed the brief, he did not file it as a brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Nor did he file a motion to withdraw with the brief as required by Anders v. California and Stafford v. State. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); see also McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438-39 & n. 13, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1901-02 & n. 13, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645-46 (Tex.App.—Waco 1994, no pet.) (per curiam). Only after the Court notified appellate counsel of the need to file a motion to withdraw did he do so. [2] By not filing a motion to withdraw, appellate counsel exhibited a basic, and common, misunderstanding about Anders cases. This Court in the past has also not adhered to the precise requirements of Anders and its progeny. To remedy the current misunderstandings about Anders cases and this Court’s requirements, we offer the following[*779] discussion of the procedure of an appeal that an appointed counsel believes is frivolous.

Anders and Its Progeny

The Supreme Court extended an indigent defendant’s right to appointed counsel to a first appeal when provided by state law. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 356, 83 S.Ct. 814, 816, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). Appointed appellate counsel, however, is not permitted to make frivolous arguments on appeal. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436, 108 S.Ct. at 1901. In Anders, the Supreme Court recognized a limited exception to the Douglas requirement and created a procedure for remedying the conflict between an appellant’s right to appointed counsel to present his appeal and the attorney’s duty not to make frivolous arguments on appeal. If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 437, 108 S.Ct. at 1901; Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 675, 78 S.Ct. 974, 975, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958). To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney [3] must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 439, 108 S.Ct. at 1902; Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 646. This brief in support of the motion to withdraw is the document now commonly denominated an “Anders” brief.

The purpose of an Anders brief is to support the appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw by showing that appellate counsel performed a conscientious examination of the record and that the appeal is so frivolous that the indigent appellant should be denied his federal constitutional right to appointed counsel on appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82, 109 S.Ct. 346, 350-51, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); McCoy, 486 U.S. at 439 n. 13, 108 S.Ct. at 1902 n. 13. Determining that an appeal is frivolous is not a conclusion to be reached lightly. This Court cannot deny an indigent appellant his constitutional right to appointed counsel on appeal until we are satisfied that two concerns have been met. First, we must determine that appellate counsel has provided the appellant with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support the appeal. Second, we must determine whether appellate counsel has correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous. McCoy, 486 U.S. at 442, 108 S.Ct. at 1904; Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 645. The duties of both the appellate court and appellate counsel are thoroughly discussed in Johnson, and we will not repeat them here. See Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 645-48. Like the Waco Court of Appeals, however, this Court will strictly enforce the requirements of Anders. If an appellate counsel’s Anders brief in support of counsel’s motion to withdraw does not comply -with the requirements of Anders and its progeny, this Court will strike the brief and order appellate counsel to file a new brief.

Appellate Counsel’s Anders Brief

The brief appellate counsel filed in this case does not meet the requirements of Anders. The brief simply summarizes the evidence and then concludes that the appeal is frivolous. The brief contains no references to the record, as required by Anders, Stafford, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Nor does the brief contain any analysis of the record. Counsel’s brief contains no analysis or explanation of the validity of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of the evidence of appellant’s guilt, the validity of the punishment assessed, or whether appellant received effective assistance of counsel at trial. [4] Finally, the prayer for[*780] relief asked this Court to affirm appellant’s conviction. The correct prayer in an Anders brief is that the appellate court grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. [5]

Ordinarily, this Court would strike appellate counsel’s inadequate Anders brief, order rebriefing, and consider appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw with the new brief. See Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 648. We will strike appellate counsel’s Anders brief, but we will not require him to file a new brief because the Court has already observed that appellate counsel failed to raise an arguable point of error in the judgment. The judgment does not appear to reflect accurately the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. The trial court orally pronounced sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment, but the judgment shows a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine. Cf. Williams v. State, 796 S.W.2d 793, 800 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990, no pet.).

The failure of appellate counsel’s brief to discuss this issue shows that counsel failed to make a professional evaluation of the record, thereby denying appellant his right to equal protection of the laws. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. While this Court has authority to reform a judgment when it has the necessary information before it to do so, Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd) (en banc), the failure of appellate counsel to request reformation favorable to appellant indicates that counsel did not perform a professional evaluation of the record. Cf., e.g., Creeks v. State, 773 S.W.2d 334, 335 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd) (State requested reformation of judgment to include deadly weapon finding), overruled by Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 531. If counsel missed such an obvious point of error, we cannot assume that counsel would have caught other more subtle points of error. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to strike appellate counsel’s inadequate Anders brief and have the trial court appoint new counsel to review the record.

In accordance with Stafford v. State, we strike appellate counsel’s inadequate Anders brief and we grant his motion to withdraw. We order the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel to represent appellant, investigate the record, and file a new brief for appellant. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511; Ortiz v. State, 849 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.). In the brief, counsel should discuss the validity of the fine stated in the judgment as well as any other grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. The trial court is ordered to inform this Court in writing of the identity of new counsel and the date that new counsel is appointed. Counsel’s brief will be due thirty days after the trial court makes the appointment. The State’s brief will be due twenty-five days after appellant’s brief is filed. This Court will then reschedule the case for submission.

1

. A statement of facts was filed in the case, thereby mooting the issue.

2

. The Clerk of the Court sent appellate counsel a letter informing him of the need to file a motion to withdraw. When appellate counsel did not respond, the Court ordered appellate counsel to file a motion to withdraw within ten days. Appellate counsel finally filed the motion to withdraw on the ninth day.

3

. The procedural safeguards of Anders and its progeny apply to counsel appointed to represent an indigent appellant. They do not apply to retained attorneys. See McCoy, 486 U.S. at 438-39 & n. 12, 108 S.Ct. at 1901-02 & n. 12; Johnson, 885 S.W.2d at 645. Of course, an appellant’s indigency must be determined at the time of appeal, not before trial. See Rosales v. State, 748 S.W.2d 451, 455 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), ce rt. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2917, 101 L.Ed.2d 949 (1988).

4

. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal is the same as his appointed counsel at trial. We need not decide here whether it is ever appropriate for appointed appellate counsel who also was appellant’s trial counsel to file an Anders brief due to the bias and prejudice an attorney may have in[*780] evaluating on appeal his own performance at trial.

5

. The usual prayer this Court sees in Anders briefs is that we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment of acquittal or remand for a new trial. Such a prayer is inconsistent with appellate counsel’s brief that the appeal is frivolous. Appellate counsel cannot, consistent with his duty to his client, pray that we affirm his client’s conviction. Because of the conflict in these duties, appellate counsel in this conundrum must move to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.