## NUMBER 13 -23-00298- CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

KYLE MITCHELL ODOM, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.
On appeal from the 379th District Court of Bexar C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Pe ñ a Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
A ppellant Kyle Mitchell Odom was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon and sentenced to forty

- five years’ imprisonment , enhanced by appellant’s2 habitual felon offender status

. 1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §§ 12.42(d) , 22.02( a )(2). Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. **A NDERS**  B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal c ould be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 40 6 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texa s,

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

– 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2003, no pet.)) ) ; Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.3 in writing that he : (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of h is right s to file pro se response s , to review the record prior to filing those response s , and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that onl y requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 40 8

– 09

. In this case, appellant filed neither a timely motion seeking pro se access to the appellate record nor a motion for extension of time to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief

. II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief , and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement s of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re4 Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17

. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise h im of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
41 1 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
I V

. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment

. CLARISSA SILVA Justice
Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed on the 4th day of January , 202 4

.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the T exas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. A ny petition for discretionary review must be filed with the C lerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.