NUMBER 13-18-00218-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

PATRICK SCOTT RYAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Aransas County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant Patrick Scott Ryan pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of property valued 

at more than $2,500 but less than $30,000, a state jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 

§ 31.03 (West, Westlaw through 1st 2017 C.S.). Ryan was sentenced to deferred 

adjudication and placed on community supervision for two years. The State of Texas 
2

filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt, setting forth eight alleged violations of Ryan’s 

community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt the State 

abandoned three of the alleged violations and Ryan pleaded true to the remaining five

violations, stating that he had used controlled substances while on community 

supervision, failed to submit to confinement as required by his community supervision, 

and failed to pay the required fines and fees. In testifying, Ryan requested that he be 

adjudicated guilty and sentenced by the court. The trial court sentenced Ryan to two 

years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–State Jail Division and fined him 

$5,000. Ryan’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. 

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

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders, Ryan’s 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 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, Ryan’s counsel carefully discussed why, under 

controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. 573 S.W.2d 
3

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, 

that counsel has: (1) notified Ryan that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw; (2) provided Ryan with a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (3) 

informed Ryan of his rights to file a pro se response1 and review the record preparatory 

to filing that response; and (4) provided Ryan with a form motion for pro se access to the 

appellate record with instructions to file the motion in this Court. 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 403, 409 

n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). An adequate amount of time has passed, and Ryan has 

not filed a pro se brief. 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 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, 826–827 (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 

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. 

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

We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for 

 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 the 

case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 
4

review and the appeal is frivolous. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 

at 827.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ln accordance with Anders, Ryan’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to 

withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also ln 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.) (“[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 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 Ryan and to advise him of his right to file a petition for 

discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also ln 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 trial court’s judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

21st day of February, 2019.

 2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Ryan seeks 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 was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review 

should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.