In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00006-CR 

TUCKER WAYNE MCCREA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 51st District Court 

Tom Green County, Texas 

Trial Court No. B-14-0389-SA, Honorable Barbara L. Walther, Presiding 

 

August 30, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Tucker Wayne McCrea, was convicted by a jury of the offense of 

continuous sexual abuse of a child.1 The jury then considered the punishment evidence 

and sentenced appellant to serve 28 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant has perfected his appeal and we will affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b)(2) (West 2016).
2

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, 

there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he 

has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and 

appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also 

advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel 

has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in 

preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a response. 

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an 

appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the 

appeal is frivolous.2

We have also reviewed the response filed by appellant. We have found no 

arguable grounds contained in the response. By his response, appellant contends that 

 

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 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.
3

his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. In reviewing appellant’s response, we 

note that appellant points to no specific shortcomings of trial counsel, instead, appellant 

simply makes a global allegation that trial counsel was ineffective. Having reviewed the 

record, we have determined that there are no instances of ineffective assistance shown. 

See Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, 

appellant fails to raise an arguable ground in his response.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s 

judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish