NUMBER 13-20-00501-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

STEVEN WAYNE LANDRUM, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellate counsel’s Anders1 brief and motion to 

withdraw as counsel stating that review of the record has yielded no grounds of error upon 

which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of 

1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why counsel concluded there are no arguable grounds for relief.

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). In this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments raised in the 

Anders brief, and issues appellant points out in his pro se brief. See United States v. 

Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir.1998); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). 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.

After our independent review of the record, we conclude that there are arguable 

appellate issues in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

For instance, the trial court conducted the motion to revoke hearing and appellant 

appeared at the hearing via videoconference, and there is nothing in the record indicating 

that the conditions of article 27.18 of the code of criminal procedure were met. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 27.18 (providing that certain conditions must occur for the 

trial court to accept a defendant’s waiver to appear in open court); Lira v. State, No. 11-
3

20-00148-CR, __ S.W.3d __, __, 2021 WL 924893, at * 2 (Tex. App.—Eastland March 

11, 2021, no pet.) designated for publication by Lira v. State, 622 S.W.3d 921, 922 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2021). We stress that this is not an exhaustive list of arguable issues that 

could be raised on appeal, and we note further that we have not determined that there is 

merit in this argument.

We conclude that appellate counsel has met the professional obligations under 

Anders and grant the motion to withdraw, previously carried with the case. We abate the 

appeal and remand the case to the trial court to appoint a new appellate attorney. See 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. The trial court shall make the appointment and ensure 

that a supplemental record of the proceedings is filed in this Court no later than twenty 

(20) days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the 

supplemental record. Appellant’s brief on the merits will be due thirty (30) days after the 

supplemental record is filed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

15th day of July, 2021.