See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). 1

NUMBER 13-06-00535-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

REBECCA JEAN CANN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law of Kleberg County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez

A jury found appellant, Rebecca Jean Cann, guilty of the misdemeanor offense of

driving while intoxicated. The trial court assessed a sentence of 180 days’ confinement, 1

suspended the sentence, placed appellant on community supervision for eighteen months,
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2008). 2

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 3

See id. 

4

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief 5

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 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503, 510

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

High v. State, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 6

2

and imposed a fine of $500.00 fine and court costs.2

Appellant’s appellate counsel, concluding that “there are no grounds upon which an

appeal can be predicated,” filed an Anders brief, in which he reviewed the merits, or lack 3

thereof, of the appeal. We affirm. 

I. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has 4

filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds or error

upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel’s brief does not advance any

arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 

5

In compliance with High v. State, appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, 6

under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has

informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds

to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on

appellant, and (3) informed appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W .2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d 7

at 409 n.23. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court

those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case

presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 409 n.23 (quoting Wilson v. State, 955

S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–W aco 1997, no pet.)).

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 409.

8

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). 9

W e note that the Kleberg County Court-at-Law has been granted permission to use an electronic 10

recording system in criminal law matters, pursuant to an order dated June 11, 1997. W e have diligently

reviewed the audiotapes of the proceedings in this matter. Although we understand that limited resources

may have necessitated this arrangement, we note that the audiotapes are difficult to understand, and may

present special challenges to an incarcerated defendant’s ability to review the record. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“As stated above, the court 11

of appeals is not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response.

. . . 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

of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W .2d at 509.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v.

12

State, 903 S.W .2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that “[i]f an attorney believes the

appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the

appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). 

3

response. Appellant has filed a pro se response. 7 8

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. We have reviewed the

9

entire record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se brief, and have found nothing that 10

would arguably support an appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 11

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for permission

to withdraw as counsel for appellant. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five 12
See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W .3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 13

S.W .3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to

seek further review of this case by the Texas 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 that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review

must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. 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.

4

days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion

and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review.13

 

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ,

Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 26th day of August, 2009.