COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHNNY LEE MOLDER, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00114-CR

Appeal from the

355th Judicial District Court

of Hood County, Texas 

(TC# CR11481) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Johnny Lee Molder, Jr. appeals his conviction of indecency with a child by contact 

following revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Molder waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charged 

offense of indecency with a child by contact, a second degree felony. The trial court found that 

the evidence supported a finding of guilt, but deferred adjudicating guilt and placed Molder on 

deferred adjudication community supervision for 10 years. The State subsequently filed a motion 

to proceed with adjudication of guilt based on four alleged violations of the terms and conditions 

of community supervision, including an allegation that Molder had unsupervised contact with 

several children younger than 17 years of age. Molder entered a plea of true to the State’s 
2

allegations, and the trial court accepted his plea. After hearing evidence and considering 

arguments, the trial court found that Molder violated the terms and conditions of community 

supervision as alleged in the State’s motion and assessed punishment at 20 years’ imprisonment.

ANDERS BRIEF

Molder’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 

2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [panel op.] 

1978)(adopting the Anders procedure); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). In Anders, the United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel, 

though appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to 

pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. Counsel was 

thus permitted to withdraw after informing the court of his conclusion and the effort made in 

arriving at that conclusion. Id.

In this case, Molder’s appellate counsel has concluded that after a thorough review of the 

record, Molder’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of 

Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. In accordance 

with Anders’s requirements, Molder’s counsel has moved to withdraw. Counsel states in his 

motion that he delivered copies of the motion and Anders brief to Molder and advised Molder of 

his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Molder has not filed a pro se brief.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW

After counsel files a proper Anders brief, the court of appeals must conduct its own review 
3

of the record to ascertain if there are any arguable grounds for the appeal. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 

511. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in this case, and we agree with 

counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Because there is 

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the arguable 

grounds advanced in counsel’s Anders brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the State.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

March 28, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)