IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00184-CR

JAMES KYLE GRAHAM,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-03696-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant James Kyle Graham of aggravated robbery and 

assessed his punishment at seventy years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

29.03 (West 2011). This appeal ensued. We affirm.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to 

withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of 

error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements 
Graham v. State Page 2

of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 

‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to 

the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins 

v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling 

authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has 

informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable 

grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to 

withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and 

to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate 

period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.2 See Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409.

 

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the 

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether 

the case presents any meritorious issues.’” Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 

S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

2 Nowhere in the record or in the documents received by the Court does appellant suggest that he 

wants or sought the record but was unable to obtain it. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). 
Graham v. State Page 3

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record 

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of 

Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the 

briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals 

met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d 

at 509. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 

1400; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 

779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, 

he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, 

the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing 

the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to 

send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of 

his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also 

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for 

rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
Graham v. State Page 4

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006). 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 19, 2015

Do not publish

[CRPM]

 

68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of 

the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.