Opinion filed January 20, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00083-CR

___________

JACOB ANDREW WALLING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR45673

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Based upon open pleas of guilty, the trial court convicted Jacob Andrew 

Walling of the offenses of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault on a public 

servant, both first-degree felonies. The trial court held a hearing as to punishment, 

made an affirmative deadly weapon finding in each cause, found the enhancement 

allegation to be true, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for thirty

years for each offense, to run concurrently. We dismiss the appeal.
2

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. 

Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, 

the reporter’s record, and a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record. 

Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response 

to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed.1

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 

S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and 

pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause 

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

 

1This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.
3

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the 

attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the 

opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along 

with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

January 20, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.