NUMBER 13-17-00114-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

BRANDON WADE HERMANN, Appellant,

 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This is an appeal from a conviction for assault causing bodily injury. Hermann’s 

court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
2

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief 

and a 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. See id. Counsel’s brief meets 

the requirements 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 carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there 

is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in 

writing, that counsel has: (1) notified the appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with a copy of the Anders brief; (3) 

informed the appellant of his rights to file a pro se response1 and review the record 

preparatory to filing that response; and (4) provided the appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this Court. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see 

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Hermann has not filed a pro se response.

 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.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 
3

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

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 (1988). If a later pro se brief is filed after an Anders brief has been submitted on 

behalf of the appellant, the Court of Criminal Appeals has in Bledsoe stated an appellate 

court has two choices. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

We may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion after reviewing the 

record and finding no reversible error. Id. at 826–827. Alternatively, if we determine that 

arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must remand for the appointment of new counsel 

to brief those issues. Id. at 827.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and appellate counsel's 

brief and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. State, 300 

S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. We agree 

with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the 

appeal is frivolous. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ln accordance with Anders, Hermann’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also ln re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("[I]f 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.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's 
4

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 Hermann and to advise him of 

his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also ln 

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

App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

31st day of May, 2018. 

 2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Hermann seeks 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within 

thirty days from the date of either 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. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary 

review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.