1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jonathan Uribe v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00265-CR

Trial court case number: 2013CR5298

Trial court: 290th District Court of Bexar County

On August 8, 2014, appellant’s counsel, Shawn Sheffield, filed a brief concluding 

that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008). Counsel has not, however, file a motion to withdraw from representation.

If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request 

permission to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. An Anders brief 

must accompany a motion to withdraw, neither the brief nor the motion may be filed on 

its own. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–08.

Further, we find the brief filed on appellant’s behalf deficient. This is an appeal 

from a jury trial, and the record on appeal includes a 6-volume reporter’s record. 

Nevertheless, the brief provides no discussion of the evidence. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Williams v. State, 976 S.W.2d 871, 873 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, order); Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.). And, although counsel presents a “minimally arguable 

point of error,” he neither provides any discussion of the facts or law related to the issue 

nor presents any argument or citations to authority to support his conclusion that the issue 

will not support an appeal. See High, 573 S.W.2d at 812, 813; Williams, 976 S.W.2d at 

873.
2

By failing to provide a professional evaluation of the record, counsel’s brief 

provides no aid to appellant or to this Court, and it fails to meet the requirements of 

Anders. See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisc., Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 442, 108 S. Ct.

1895, 1903–04 (1988) (requiring appellate court, in addition to determining whether 

counsel correctly determined that appeal is frivolous, to “satisfy itself that the attorney 

has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable 

claim that might support the client’s appeal); Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400 (requiring counsel to file brief that assists client by evaluating all potential grounds 

for appeal and aids Court in evaluating record); High, 573 S.W.2d at 812 (requiring 

“brief of counsel to contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in 

effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced”).

Accordingly, we strike the defective brief and order counsel to file a new brief, 

correcting the deficiencies in the stricken brief and presenting a full discussion of the 

evidence presented in the trial court. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 432 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2009, order), disp. on merits, No. 01-08-00286-CR, 2010 WL 1053218 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] March 11, 2010, no pet.). Appellant’s amended brief is ordered filed 

no later than 30 days from the date of this order.

Finally, we order counsel to file a motion to withdraw that complies with Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5 and 9 in conjunction with the filing of the amended 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 9; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 410, 412.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 26, 2014