record reflects no reversible error in Texas

2014Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 744- 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 45, 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1987); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1984, no pet.).

2000In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that, in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.), she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated.

2026Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim.

2011CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Pugh's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he has "diligently reviewed the entire appeal record in this case and the law applicable thereto" and in his professional opinion, he "can perceive no arguably meritorious issues from the records in this cause." After discussing the revocation plea and proceeding, in particular, counsel concludes that "the record reflects no reversible error . . . [and] there are no grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated." See In re Schulman, 25

2016The trial court found that “no hearing was held concerning the results of the DNA testing” and it “entered its findings based solely on the test results without conducting a hearing.” Gaines’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel accompanied by a brief in which he cited Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and concluded “this appeal in each [sic] case is without merit and wholly frivolous” because “the record reflects no reversible error” and there were “no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated.” As relevant to this opinion, counsel concluded, after conducting

2015Canyon, Texas79015 13 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL In compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the undersigned appointed counsel of record for Destany Liles, on appeal, states that counsel has diligently reviewed the entire record in this cause and the law applicable thereto, and it is his opinion that the appeal of the judgment of conviction in this cause is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error.

2015This case should be affirmed 13 Respectfully Submitted, S/Terrence Gaiser___________ TERRENCE GAISER LAWYER FOR APPELLANT 2900 SMITH, STE. 220 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77006 SBN: 07572500 713/225-0666 [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL In compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), counsel for DERRICK DESHAWN GILBERT, on this appeal, states that he has diligently reviewed the entire appellate record in this case and the law applicable thereto and, in his opinion, the appeal of the judgment of conviction in thi

2009Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Â Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed . 2d 498 (1967). Â In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Â Id . at 744-45. Â In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court = s judgment. Â Additionally, couns

2018See In re L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedure is appropriate in mental health commitment cases).

2018See In re L.E.H., 228 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedure is appropriate in mental health commitment cases).

2007See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (applying the Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings).

2007See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (applying the Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings).

2014PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(2)(A),(B) (West 2011). 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). counsel certifies that in his professional opinion the appeal “is without merit and frivolous because the record reflects no reversible error.” On receipt of a court- appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief, we independently review the entire record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable issues pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim.

2009Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Â Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct . 1396, 18 L.Ed . 2d 498 (1967). Â In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Â Id . at 744-45. Â In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court = s judgment. Â Additionally, couns

2022Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.

2013Porter v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 105 S.W.3d 52, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (“[W]hen appointed counsel represents an indigent client in a parental termination appeal and concludes that there are no non- frivolous issues for appeal, counsel may file an Anders-type brief.”); see also In re B.W., No. 13-13-00033-CV, 2013 WL 1092215 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi March 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hyden v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No. 13- 06-314-CV, 2006 WL 3824938 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 29, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2011App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) ("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.

2009Appellant contends in his response that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We have reviewed the totality of the record and find that any issue attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict is frivolous.  See  Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct . 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Ross v. State , 133 S.W.3d 618, 620 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2004).  As to appellant’s contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record does not support them, and they are likewise frivolous.

2009Appellant contends in his response that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We have reviewed the totality of the record and find that any issue attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict is frivolous.  See  Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct . 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Ross v. State , 133 S.W.3d 618, 620 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2004).  As to appellant’s contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record does not support them, and they are likewise frivolous.

2002See id. at 884-86 .