Opinion issued January 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-13-00280-CR

____________

MICHAEL WAYNE STARNES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22,566-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Michael Wayne Starnes, pleaded guilty to the offense of Theft 

under $1,500.00, with two prior convictions. Appellant plead guilty, and a jury trial 

was held to determine punishment. The jury assessed punishment at two years 

confinement in a state jail facility, and a fine of $10,000.00. 
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 

therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has 

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of 

error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell 

v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant 

and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. 

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has 

not filed a response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable 

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—
3

determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly 

frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable 

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); 

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds 

exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there 

are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Michael Aduddell must immediately send the notice required 

by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the 

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

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

 

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997).