NUMBER 13-15-00429-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

JENNIFER LYNN MORRIS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

On February 3, 2011, appellant Jennifer Lynn Morris pleaded guilty to two counts 

of endangering a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.041 (West, Westlaw through 

2015 R.S.). The trial court, pursuant to plea agreement, sentenced her to two years’

imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division (TDCJ-
2

ID) and assessed a fine of $250.00, which the trial court deferred and probated for three 

years. 

The State filed two motions to revoke against Morris wherein the court allowed 

Morris to continue on probation. On August 13, 2011, the State filed a third motion to 

revoke alleging twenty-six violations of probation. Morris pled true to all the allegations 

in the motion to revoke. These violations included: violating a new law (failure to 

identify); committing a curfew violation; associating with a known felon; failing to complete 

outpatient treatment and payment thereof; failing to report to probation and Alcoholics 

Anonymous meetings from November 2014 through June 2015; and failing to pay 

probation fees. 

The trial court found all of the allegations “true,” revoked Morris’s community 

supervision, and sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment in the TDCJ-ID. Morris’s 

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record 

yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can 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, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief 

need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds non, but it must 

provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal 
3

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). 

In compliance with High v. State and Kelly v. State, Morris’s counsel carefully 

discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s 

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

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Morris’s appellate 

counsel also notified this Court that he: (1) notified Morris that he has filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Morris with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed 

Morris of his rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that 

response,1 and seek discretionary review if we concluded that the appeal is frivolous; (4) 

provided Morris with a copy of the appellate record; and (5) informed Morris that the pro 

se response, if any, should identify for the Court those issues which she believes the 

Court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues. 

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 

n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, 

and Morris had not filed a pro se brief.

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. Penson v. Ohio, 488 

 

1 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 to 

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.—Waco 1997, no pet.). 
4

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a 

subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) 

determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds 

no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and 

remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable 

grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed 

those issues on appeal. Id. 

We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found 

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827–28 (“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. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[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)). We grant counsel’s 
5

motion to withdraw. Within five days of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send

a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Morris and advise her of her right to 

file a petition for discretionary review. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex Parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

14th day of July, 2016. 

 

2 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 or 

timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overrule by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.