In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00431-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1589641D

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUSTIN GLENN ALCOCER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANUDM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Justin Glenn Alcocer guilty of assault–family violence

with a prior conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(2)(A) (setting forth 

the crime of assault–family violence and stating that it is a third-degree felony). The 

trial court sentenced Appellant to fourteen years’ confinement after he pleaded true to 

the repeat-offender notices in the indictment. See id. §§ 12.33, 12.42(a).

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 

and an amended brief in support of that motion. In the amended brief, counsel avers 

that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s amended brief and 

motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510–11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Appellant of counsel’s

motion to withdraw; (2) provided Appellant a copy of both the motion and amended 

brief; (3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his 

pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous; 

and (5) took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Appellant the 

opportunity to file a response on his own behalf, and though he did not do so within 
3

the time allotted, we construe a letter he filed to be his brief.

1 The State filed a letter 

stating that it would not be filing a brief.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the

ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is 

obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any 

arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 

Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s amended brief, Appellant’s late-filed 

brief, and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the appellate record that arguably

might support this appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

1

On July 13, 2021, we sent Appellant a letter stating that if he wished to 

examine the record and file a pro se response, he needed to sign and date the motion 

for pro se access to the appellate record that his attorney had provided and send it to 

us within fourteen days. On August 13, 2021, we received Appellant’s letter dated 

August 8, 2021, stating that he does not know the law in order to be able to represent 

himself but that his appellate counsel was insufficient and that he feels like he “got 

to[o] much time for a misdemeanor.”
4

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

/s/ Dabney Bassel

Dabney Bassel

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 7, 2021