In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00164-CR

JIMMY DON WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. F15507

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 2, 2022, Jimmy Don Walker pled guilty to possession of less than one 

gram of a Penalty Group 1 controlled substance, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 481.115(b). The trial court accepted Walker’s plea and found him guilty of the 

charged offense. After Walker pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegations, the 

trial court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration. Walker appeals.

Walker’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and 

found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history

of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Meeting the 

requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the 

record, demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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. 

On February 17, 2023, counsel mailed Walker copies of the brief, the motion to 

withdraw, and the appellate record. Walker was informed of his rights to review the record and 

file a pro se response. By letter dated February 17, 2023, this Court informed Walker that any 

pro se response was due on or before March 20, 2023. On March 6, 2023, Walker filed his pro 

se response. Also on March 6, 2023, we advised Walker that this cause was set for submission 

on March 27, 2023. 
3

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently 

reviewed the entire appellate record and Walker’s pro se response and have determined that no 

arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. 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

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: March 27, 2023

Date Decided: April 10, 2023

Do Not Publish 

1Since 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.