Opinion filed December 31, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-20-00017-CR

___________

JEFFERY WADE ROBERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR49424

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Jeffery Wade Roberson waived his right to a trial by a jury and 

pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of one gram or more but less than four

grams of a controlled substance and true to an alleged enhancement paragraph. The 

trial court found Appellant guilty of the charged offense, found that the alleged 

enhancement was true, and assessed punishment of six years’ imprisonment. We 

affirm. 
2

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 

examines the record and applicable law and states that she has concluded that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of 

both the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his

right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised 

Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to 

seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Courtappointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant 

contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and that he has 

difficulty with “decision-making” due to past medical conditions and needs “mental 

help.” We have considered the assertions made by Appellant in his pro se response. 

However, in addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals 

may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that 

arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the case to the trial court so that new 

counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the 
3

procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the 

record, and we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial 

court. 

PER CURIAM

December 31, 2020

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

2

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.