### NUMBER 13
- 17
- 00 114
- C R 

## 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. **A NDERS**  B RIEF
Pursuant to Anders , appellant’s court

- appoi nted 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 pr esents 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 hi s rights to file a pro se response 1 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. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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. Alt ernatively, 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 reversi ble 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. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW
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's4 motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opini on and this Court's judgment to Hermann and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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. C ON CLUSION Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 Tex as 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.