IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00228-CR

TERRY A. GATLIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 37,192

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Terry Gatlin pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to driving 

while intoxicated, third offense or more. The trial court assessed Gatlin’s punishment at 

ten years’ imprisonment but then suspended the confinement and placed him on 

community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke 

Gatlin’s community supervision, alleging that he violated certain terms and conditions 

of his community supervision. Gatlin pleaded “true” to the allegations. Accordingly, the 
Gatlin v. State Page 2

trial court revoked Gatlin’s community supervision and sentenced him to ten years’ 

imprisonment. This appeal ensued.

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

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

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

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, 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), Gatlin’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 

she 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 Gatlin; and (3) 
Gatlin v. State Page 3

informed Gatlin 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. Gatlin has filed a pro se response, but he raises no arguable grounds 

to advance in this appeal.

2

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, Gatlin’s attorney has asked this Court for permission 

to withdraw as counsel for Gatlin. 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. 

 

1 The 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 Counsel has informed this Court that she has provided the clerk’s and reporter’s records to Gatlin. See 

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

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 Gatlin and to advise him of his right to file a 

petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also 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 December 7, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Gatlin 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 from the date the last timely motion for rehearing 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 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.