In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00034-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1519428R

Before Walker, Gabriel, and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

CHAD A. ISAACS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Chad A. Isaacs appeals his conviction and his twenty-five year 

sentence for theft.1Isaacs pleaded guilty without entering into a plea bargain. At the 

time of the plea, he affirmed his competency to stand trial, averred that he was 

satisfied with his counsel’s representation, received admonishments about the effects 

of the plea, waived constitutional and statutory rights, and entered a judicial 

confession. The trial court found him guilty, received evidence concerning his 

punishment, and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. He brought this 

appeal. 

Issacs’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief 

under Anders v. California, representing that counsel can “find no errors warranting 

reversal that can be legitimately supported by the record.” 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. 

Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (analyzing the effect of Anders). In compliance 

with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Issacs of the motion to withdraw, provided him a 

copy of the Anders brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed 

 

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (West Supp. 2018). The State charged 

Isaacs with theft of over $200,000, which was a first-degree felony at the time of his 

offense. See Martinez v. State, 527 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2017, 

pet. ref’d).
3

him of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold that the appeal is 

frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate 

record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We gave Isaacs an opportunity to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, but 

he did not. The State did not file a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the 

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must 

independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. 

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record 

that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 4, 2018