In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00081-CR

JOHN FITZGERALD DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 48028-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John Fitzgerald Davis entered an open plea of guilty and judicially confessed to unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a felon and was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to six years’ 

imprisonment. 

Davis’ appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, 

summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding 

that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California and has provided a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion 

with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Counsel sent a copy of the brief to Davis, provided him with a copy of the record, and 

advised Davis of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. Davis filed a pro se 

motion for access to appellate record, which we granted, and notified Davis that his pro se response 

was due October 31, 2019. Davis filed neither a pro se response nor a motion for extension of 

time to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the entire 

appellate record and have independently determined that no reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. 
3

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine 

that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

1

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: December 3, 2019

Date Decided: December 13, 2019

Do Not Publish

1

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request 

to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel 

will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date 

of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and 

(3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P.

68.4.