                            NUMBER 13-08-00321-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG


ERIC ALLEN GERLAND,                                                          Appellant,

                                            v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                           Appellee.


                  On appeal from the 107th District Court of
                         Cameron County, Texas.


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
            Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

       On January 27, 2007, appellant, Eric Allen Gerland, was indicted on one count of

murder, a first-degree felony. See TEX . PENAL CODE ANN . § 19.02(b)(1), (2) (Vernon 2003).

The indictment alleged that Gerland (1) intentionally or knowingly caused Cathy Jill

Vanderhee’s death by striking her head against a metal vent or an unknown object; or (2)

with intent to cause serious bodily injury, committed an act clearly dangerous to

Vanderhee’s life by striking her head against a metal vent or an unknown object, which
caused Vanderhee’s death. Gerland pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury.

The jury found Gerland guilty and assessed punishment at forty-five years’ confinement.

The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Gerland according to the

jury’s verdict. Gerland’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. We

affirm.

                                       I. ANDERS BRIEF

          Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Gerland’s

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review

of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated.

Although counsel’s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present

a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds

to be advanced 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), Gerland’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there

are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has:

(1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served

a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Gerland, and (3) informed Gerland




                                              2
of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days.1 See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Gerland has filed a pro se response in which he argues that: (1) he

was subject to “multiplicitous prosecution” because the jury was instructed on the two

theories of murder contained in the single count indictment; (2) the evidence is insufficient

to support his conviction; and (3) he was afforded ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

                                        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). We have reviewed the entire record, counsel’s brief, Gerland’s pro se

response, and the State’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                       III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, Gerland’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.


        1
           The Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not com ply 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 m eritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim . App. 2008) (quoting
W ilson v. State, 955 S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–W aco 1997, no pet.)).
                                                     3
App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that “[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 the opinion and judgment to Gerland 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).


                                                               ________________________
                                                               ROGELIO VALDEZ
                                                               Chief Justice

Do Not Publish.
TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed
the 3rd day of December, 2009.




         2
            No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
by the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals, he m ust 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 m ust be filed within
thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last tim ely m otion for rehearing that was overruled by this
Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review m ust be filed with this Court, after which
it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for
discretionary review should com ply with the requirem ents of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4.
                                                          4
