IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00211-CR

PAMELA COAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-21927

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Pamela Coan, was charged by information with driving while 

intoxicated with a child passenger, a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.045 

(West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the 

charged offense. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, found appellant guilty 

of the charged offense, sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement in the State Jail 
Coan v. State Page 2

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a $1,000 fine, suspended the 

sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for three years.

Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, 

alleging that appellant violated numerous conditions of her community supervision. 

Without the benefit of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations 

contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The trial court accepted appellant’s pleas of 

“true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to eighteen 

months confinement with no fine. The trial court certified appellant’s right of appeal, 

and this appeal followed.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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 a motion to 

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

which an appeal can be predicated. 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, 
Coan v. State Page 3

343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

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 

are no reversible errors 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) provided appellant with a copy of the record and informed her of her right 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 In re 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 409.

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. 

 

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) 

(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

2

In his notice to appellant, appellant’s counsel indicated that he has “previously sent [appellant] a 

copy of the record for your use.” Based on this representation and the fact that we have not received a 

complaint from appellant regarding access to the record, we have fair assurance that appellant has had 

sufficient access to the record to assist in filing a pro se response, though no response has been filed. See 

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 
Coan v. State Page 4

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, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

permission to withdraw as counsel in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400; see also In 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.) (“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.”) (citations omitted)). 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 her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; 

 

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

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she 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 
Coan v. State Page 5

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

Crim. App. 2006). 

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 2017

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

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. 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 In re Schulman, 

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