NUMBER 13-18-00349-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

SHANNON LEE ALT, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 264th District Court

of Bell County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellant Shannon Lee Alt was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to 

deliver methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred 

grams, a first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 
2

481.112(d). Appellant was indicted as a habitual felon with two previous felony 

convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d). The trial court found the 

enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced appellant to forty-five years’ imprisonment 

in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id. This 

appeal ensued.

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.

1

 Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, 

however, 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.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

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

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief 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 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).

 

1 Pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas, the appeal was 

transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 73.001.
3

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, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, 

that counsel has: (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 his rights to review the record, file a pro se response,2 and seek discretionary 

review if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided 

appellant with a copy of the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 

S.W.3d at 318–19. An adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se 

response. 

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 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

after reviewing the record and finding no reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Alternatively, if we determine that arguable 

grounds for appeal exist, we must remand for the appointment of new counsel to brief 

those issues. Id. at 827. 

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate 

 

2 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 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 

(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 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. We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably 

meritorious grounds for review, and an appeal would be frivolous.3 See Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. 

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’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 (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, 

he must withdraw from representing the appellant.” (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 

776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (internal quotation marks omitted))). 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s 

opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to 

 

3 Appellant’s counsel contends, however, that two errors may exist in the judgment that are 

unrelated to appellant’s guilt or punishment, and therefore this Court may correct the judgment without 

abating the appeal to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. See, e.g., Mansolo v. State, 

524 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.) (modifying the judgment to correct an error in court 

costs raised by an Anders brief without abating the appeal). More specifically, he submits that a judgment 

nunc pro tunc correcting an error in mandatory court costs is invalid because it was not signed by the “trial

judge.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01. Additionally, despite the trial court’s efforts to correct 

the court costs, he contends that the court costs exceed any statutory basis by $22.50. See Johnson v. 

State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We find no error in the judgment nunc pro tunc. The judgment is valid under the Court 

Administration Act, see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.094, and there is a statutory basis for each line item in 

the bill of cost. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 390–96; see also Diaz v. State, No. 03-17-00107-CR, 2017 

WL 2928115 (Tex. App.—Austin July 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming 

court costs and explaining that a bill of cost issued by the Bell County District Clerk with an $80 line item 

for the “district clerk’s fee” included both the statutory $40 district clerk’s fee and the statutory $40 jury fee). 

Accordingly, we decline counsel’s invitation to make any corrections to the judgment. 
5

appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.4 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; 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

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

 

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

10th day of October, 2019.

 

4 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 overruled 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 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.