In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-20-00106-CR 

 

JOHN EDWARD BRITT, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

 Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 74,439-D, Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon, Presiding 

July 8, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, John Edward Britt, was charged with aggravated robbery,1 enhanced 

by a prior felony conviction.2 After a jury trial, the jury found appellant guilty. After a brief 

punishment hearing, the trial court found the enhancement allegation “true” and 

sentenced appellant to twenty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2019).

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(c)(1) (West 2019).
2

Justice. From this judgment, appellant appealed. Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed 

a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and 

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Counsel has certified that she has conducted a conscientious examination of the 

record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the 

record presents no reversible error. In a letter to appellant, counsel notified him of her 

motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate 

record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations 

on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court 

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. 

Appellant filed a response, which we have read. The State has not filed a brief.

By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error 

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently 

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were 

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found 

no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 

(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. 

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
3

Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we 

conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review.

Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 The judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed.

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.