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 Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

These cases are before us on the motion of appellant’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 convictions for repeated violation of a protective 

order and stalking are wholly frivolous and without merit. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 

25.072(a), (e), 42.072(a), (b) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court assessed punishment, following 

adjudication of appellant’s guilt, at imprisonment 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 counsel to present her appeal and the attorney’s duty not to make 

frivolous arguments on appeal. 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 appeal 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 the 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 evaluation 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 appellate 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 new counsel within thirty days of this order. 

Counsel shall represent appellant, investigate the record, and file a new brief for appellant. In 

the brief, new counsel should discuss any grounds that might arguably support these appeals. 

See Id. at 511. 

The trial court is ordered to inform this Court 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 reschedule the case for submission. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

151284F.U05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE