
NO. 07-08-0240-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 19, 2009

______________________________


JOE N. DANIELS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B 17521-0801; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Joe N. Daniels, was convicted by a jury of
indecency with a child, enhanced.  Punishment was assessed at fifty years confinement. 
In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders
 brief in support of a motion to
withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
          In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a
conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
potentially plausible basis to support an appeal.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406
(Tex.Crim.App. 2008).  Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities,
the appeal is frivolous. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). 
Counsel has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders and In
re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right
to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review.  In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.
  By letter, this
Court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to
counsel’s brief, should he be so inclined.  Id. at 409 n.23.  Appellant did file a response.
However, the State did not favor us with a brief.
          By the Anders brief, counsel contends he has found no issues to present on appeal. 
However, he raises a potential charge error and then concedes that egregious harm, which
would be required to support reversal, is not demonstrated in the record.  By his pro se
response, Appellant maintains (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and
(2) the child victim made multiple inconsistent statements in her testimony.
          We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there are
any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such issues. 
See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  After reviewing the record,
counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, we agree with counsel that there are no
plausible grounds for appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App.
2005).
          Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the trial court’s judgment
is affirmed. 
                                                                           Patrick A. Pirtle
                                                                                 Justice

                                                                                                                                    
Do not publish.                                                                                                                                         
