                         NUMBER 13-13-00710-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG


JOHNNY WAYNE SHEFFIELD JR.,                                               Appellant,

                                          v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.


                    On appeal from the 36th District Court
                         of Aransas County, Texas.


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
               Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
      Appellant Johnny Wayne Sheffield Jr. made an open plea of guilty to the state-jail

felony offense of forgery; the trial court adjudicated his guilt and, after a punishment

hearing, sentenced appellant to eighteen months incarceration. See TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 32.21(a), (b), (d) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). Appellant’s court-

appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967). We affirm.

                                          I. ANDERS BRIEF

        Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a

brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded

no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief

meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("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. App. 1991).

        In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing,

that counsel has: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

appellant of appellant’s rights to file a pro se response,1 review the record preparatory to

filing that response, and seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that



        1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
                                                    2
the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to

the appellate record, lacking only appellant’s signature and the date and including the

mailing address for the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten

days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19, Stafford, 813 S.W.2d

at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. In this case, appellant

filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion

for extension of time to do so. No pro se brief was filed.

                                 II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988).     A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a

subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1)

determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds

no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and

remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable

grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed

those issues on appeal. Id.

       We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827–28 ("Due to the nature of

Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs

and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

                                              3
There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed.

                                       III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see 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.) ("[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he

must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is

ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise

him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                                                             NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
                                                                             Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 16th
day of October, 2014.

        2  No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or
timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
                                                       4
