NUMBER 13-09-00403-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

DENNIS WAYNE MEDLOCK, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 410th District Court

of Montgomery County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Dennis Wayne Medlock, appellant, pled guilty to possession of a controlled 

substance and sentencing was deferred for seven years’ probation. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. ' 481.115 (West 2003). On December 4, 2008, the State filed a 

motion to adjudicate on seven grounds of revocation. Medlock pled true and was 
2

sentenced to twelve years= imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal 

JusticeCInstitutional Division. 

Medlock=s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable grounds to 

be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, or lack 

thereof, of the appeal. We affirm.1

I. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant=s 

court-appointed appellate counsel has 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. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (AIn 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 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, 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) 

 

1

This case was transferred to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization 

order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 1998).
3

informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within 

thirty days.2 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 at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has 

passed and Medlock has not filed a pro se response. See In Re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 409.

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 have reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief and have found 

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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. Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

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 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that A[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is 

 

2

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe 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

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 motion to withdraw. Within five 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.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

________________________

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

30th day of August, 2011. 

 

3 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.