In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00066-CR

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DAVIDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29694

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christopher Anthony Davidson pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine in an 

amount less than one gram. He was sentenced to two years’ confinement in state jail following 

his open plea of guilt. Davidson appeals.1

Davidson’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that she has reviewed the 

record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the 

procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding.

Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation 

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion 

with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. 

On July 2, 2015, counsel mailed to Davidson a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and

the motion to withdraw. By letter, counsel informed Davidson of his right to review the record

and file a pro se response. We informed Davidson that any pro se response was due on or before 

August 6, 2015. Counsel also explained that Davidson could request an extension of time to file 

the pro se response, if needed. To date, Davidson has neither filed a pro se response nor requested 

an extension of time in which to do so.

 

1

In companion cause numbers 06-15-00065-CR and 06-15-00071-CR, Davidson also appeals two convictions for 

burglary of a building. 
3

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

the clerk’s and reporter’s records, 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). 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 2, 2015

Date Decided: September 18, 2015

Do Not Publish

 

2Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accord with Anders, grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 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 either the date 

of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing 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 TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals. 

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.