                             Fourth Court of Appeals
                                    San Antonio, Texas
                                            July 10, 2019

                                        No. 04-19-00056-CR

                                        Amanda MEDINA,
                                           Appellant

                                                  v.

                                       The STATE of Texas,
                                             Appellee

                   From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. 2017CR9848
                         Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, 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 counsel asserts there are no meritorious
issues to raise on appeal. Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to appellant
and explained appellant’s rights to review the record, file a pro se brief, and file a pro se petition
for discretionary review if this court determines the appeal is frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

       Counsel provided appellant a form motion requesting access to the appellate record. If
appellant desires pro se access to the appellate record, she must file the motion with this court by
July 22, 2019. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order she do so by August 26, 2019.

         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. Alternatively, if appellant does not
file a timely pro se brief, the State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than
August 9, 2019.

        We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel is held in abeyance
pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that a
motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews the
record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that the appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman
v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same); see also Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at
319 (appointed counsel’s duties of representation do not cease when he files a motion to
withdraw; counsel must continue to “act with competence, commitment and dedication to the
interest of the client” until the court of appeals grants the motion). Accordingly, no new attorney
will be appointed for appellant at this time.

       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.




                                                     _________________________________
                                                     Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice


       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 10th day of July, 2019.



                                                     ___________________________________
                                                     KEITH E. HOTTLE,
                                                     Clerk of Court
