In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00097-CR 

 

DERRICK BARRY, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 140th District Court 

 Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2021-423165; Honorable Douglas H. Freitag, Presiding 

December 19, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Pending before this Court is a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed 

pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Pursuant to an open plea of guilty, Appellant, Derrick 

Barry, was convicted of three counts of sexual offenses as follows:

Aggravated sexual assault (Count I) TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(2)(B) Fifty years

Indecency with child by contact (Count II) TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.11(a)(1) Twenty years

Indecency with child by exposure (Count III) TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.11(a)(2)(A) Ten years

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2

The trial court ordered the sentences in Counts I and II to run concurrently but ordered 

the sentence in Count III to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences. We affirm and 

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, it reflects no potentially 

plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling 

authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated he has complied with the 

requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of the brief to 

Appellant, (2) notifying him of the right to file a pro se response if he desired to do so, and 

(3) informing him of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

2

 By letter, this Court granted 

Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief, should 

he be so inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant filed a response by which he complains of 

the severity of his punishment which he contends was based on emotion and not the 

evidence presented. The State notified this Court it would not file a response unless 

Appellant presented any meritorious issues.

2 Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review upon execution of the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply

with Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id. at 408 n.22, 411. The duty to 

send the client a copy of this Court’s decision is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3

By the Anders brief, counsel advances cruel and unusual punishment as a 

potential error given Appellant’s sentences but after reviewing the record, he concedes 

they are within the statutory range, not grossly disproportionate to the offenses, and do 

not present reversible error. Woods v. State, 488 S.W.3d 809, 811 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

2016, pet. ref’d); Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386, 389 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, 

pet. ref’d).

3

 Additionally, a trial court has broad discretion to cumulate sentences. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.08(a); Byrd v. State, 499 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2016). Counsel also reviewed various objections which, even if erroneous, would 

not be harmful in light of the entire record. 

When we have an Anders brief by counsel and a pro se response by an appellant, 

we have two choices. We may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an 

opinion explaining we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744), 

or we may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the 

trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief issues. Id. (citing Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

We too have independently examined the record to determine whether there are 

any non-frivolous issues which might support this appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have found no such issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 

3 Although the judgment for Count III does not include a special finding on cumulation, the summary 

portion of that judgment ordering the sentence to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences in Counts 

I and II is valid. A cumulation order is deemed sufficient when the same court on the same day pronounces 

the cumulation order. See Ex parte Lewis, 414 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). See also Turner 

v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (quoting Bullard v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 348, 50 

S.W.348 (1899) (holding cumulation order is valid if convictions occur at the same term in which appellant 

is tried)). In the underlying punishment phase, the trial court pronounced the sentence in Count III would 

run consecutive to concurrent sentences in Counts I and II at the same time.
4

S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and 

Appellant’s pro se response, we agree with counsel there is no plausible basis for reversal 

of Appellant’s conviction. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 

Alex Yarbrough

 Justice

Do not publish.