                             Fourth Court of Appeals
                                    San Antonio, Texas
                                           April 5, 2018

                                       No. 04-17-00604-CR

                                     Markus Lorenzo SCOTT,
                                            Appellant

                                                 v.

                                       The STATE of Texas,
                                             Appellee

                   From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. 2016CR5941
                       The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding


                                          ORDER

        Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,
informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of
his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous,
and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the
procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State,
924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). At this time, appellant has
not filed the form motion, requesting a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record.

       If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so on or before May 21,
2018. At this time, the State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless
appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a
responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

       We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in
abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988)
(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently
reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);
Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
       We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his
counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.



                                                     _________________________________
                                                     Marialyn Barnard, Justice


       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 5th day of April, 2018.



                                                     ___________________________________
                                                     Keith E. Hottle
                                                     Clerk of Court
