## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00127 - CR JUSTIN CLARK CYR, AP PELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 106th District Court Gaines County, Texas 1 Trial Court No. 18 - 4836, Hon orable Jay Gibson , Presiding



### May 13 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. Appellant, Justin Clark Cyr , pleaded not guilty to the offense of injury to a child. 2 Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense and sentenced to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. In

1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to this Court from the Eleventh Court of Appeals. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2013 ).

2 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.04 (a)(1), (2) (West 20 19 ).2

presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders 3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his righ t to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 - 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant o f his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and appellant has filed a pro se response. The State did not file a brief. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes t hat the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non - frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support this appeal but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. See Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1969). After carefully reviewing the appellate record, counsel’s brief,

3 Se e Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).3

and appellant’s pro s e response, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 4 and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.

4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motio n to withdraw. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.