Remanded and Opinion Filed October 20, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01284-CR No. 05-15-01285-CR LATOYA DENISE MCMULLEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-24837-U, F14-24545-U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Franci s, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Francis These cases are before us on the motion of a ppellant’s appointed counsel to withdraw as counsel for appellant Latoya Denise McMullen under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appointed counsel concluded the appeals from convi ctions for repeated vi olation of a protective order and stalking are wholly frivolous and without merit. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 25.072(a), (e), 42.072(a), (b) (West Supp. 2015). Th e trial court assessed punishment, following adjudication of appellant’s guilt, at impri sonment for five years in each case.
In Anders , the Supreme Court created a procedure for remedying the conflict between an appellant’s right to appointed c ounsel to present her appeal and the attorney’s duty not to make frivolous arguments on app eal. If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw–2– from representing the appellant. McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 437 (1988). To withdraw, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the app eal is frivolous. Id . at 439. In these cases, the brief appellate counsel filed does not meet the requirements of Anders

. The statement of the case, statement of facts, and summary of the argument refer to a person not the appellant. Counsel’s brief does not contain any analysis on th e sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of evidence of appellant’s guilt, the validity of the punishment assessed, or whether the appellant received effective assistance of counsel at trial. Counsel’s brief shows counsel failed to make a professional evaluati on of the record, thereby denying appellant her right to equal protection of the law. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to strike appell ate counsel’s inadequate Anders brief and have the trial court appoint new counsel to review the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We strike appellate counsel’s inadequate Anders brief and we grant his motion to withdraw. We order the trial court to appoint ne w counsel within thirty days of this order. Counsel shall represent appellant, investigate the recor d, and file a new brief for appellant. In the brief, new counsel should di scuss any grounds that might ar guably support these appeals. See Id . at 511. The trial court is ordered to inform this C ourt in writing of the identity of new counsel and the date that new counsel is appointed. New counsel’s brief will be due thirty days after the trial court makes the appointment. The State’s brief will be due thirty days after appellant’s brief is filed.–3– This Court will then resche dule the case for submission.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 151284F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE