In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00234-CR

______________________________

GLENN DOUGLAS ROARK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court

Cherokee County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15581

 

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Glenn Douglas Roark appeals from his conviction by a jury for the offense of driving while 

intoxicated (DWI).1 TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 49.09(b) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The offense was 

enhanced by two prior DWI convictions, and he was sentenced to six and one-half years’

imprisonment. He was represented by appointed counsel at trial and on appeal. 

Roark’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the 

proceedings in detail. 2 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 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 

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

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Roark on May 3, 2010, informing Roark of his right 

to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel has also filed a motion with 

this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Roark has neither filed a pro se 

response, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to file such response.

 

1Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). 

2We did note, however, errors in appellate counsel’s brief of a nature suggesting that more care should have been taken 

in using prior briefs as a basis for preparing the current brief. Counsel stated in his preliminary statement of this case 

that this was an aggravated robbery case instead of a DWI—but then later in the same sentence states the jury found 

Roark guilty of DWI (the correct offense). This misstatement of aggravated robbery also occurs on page three of 

counsel’s brief. Counsel further states the offense took place June 28, 2004, when in fact it occurred January 28, 

2004. Also, counsel states there was no motion for directed verdict based on insufficient evidence; however, trial 

counsel did move for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence that Roark was driving a vehicle as opposed to 

just being in his yard when he was arrested. 
3

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 

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

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.3

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 13, 2010

Date Decided: July 14, 2010

Do Not Publish

 

3

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 Roark in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Roark 

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

to file a petition for discretionary review or Roark 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 that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must 

be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of 

the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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.