In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00202-CR

______________________________

ANTHONY B. DAVENPORT, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-0273X

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony B. Davenport, Jr., appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West 2011). Davenport pled guilty,1 without a negotiated 

plea agreement, and signed a written stipulation of the evidence. The trial court found Davenport 

guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement. 

Davenport’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief that discusses the record and reviews the 

proceedings in detail. The brief sets up several potential arguments and explains in detail why 

each fails to show a reversible error. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets 

the requirements of the law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Davenport informing him of his right to file a pro se 

response and to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to 

withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Davenport has neither filed a pro se response nor requested an 

extension of time in which to file such response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently 

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support 

 

1The trial court admonished Davenport concerning the range of punishment both orally and in writing. Davenport 

was admonished in writing concerning the existence of sex offender registration.
3

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and 

is frivolous; if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 20, 2012

Date Decided: March 21, 2012

Do Not Publish

 

2

Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should 

appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain 

an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must 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 for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). 

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.