### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 01 33 -C R

______________________________ ROGER SHAW, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35407-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyShaw' s attorney filed a brief in which he initially states that the appe al is wholly frivolous 1 and without merit, with ref ere nce to An de rs as authority fo r t h e p ro ce dure of filing a brief in a fr ivo lou s a

pp e a l. Couns e l de liv e re d a c op y of the br ie f t o Sh aw a

nd a dv ise d Sh aw o f h is r ig ht t o f ile a pro se response , and re quested pe rmissi o n t o withdraw, a ll in accor d with An de rs re qu ir e me nts

. An a pp oin te d atto rn e y

wh o c on c lud e s th at a cl ie nt' s a pp e a l is wi tho ut m e ri t is re qu ir e d to (1 ) fi l e a m o t i on to withdraw in the c ourt of appe als; (2) file a n An de rs brief ( in support of the mot ion to w ith dr aw) tha

t r e fe rs to a

ny thi ngin t he re c or d that mi g ht a

rgua bly su pp or t an a pp e a l in su pp or t of the mot ion ; ( 3) se nd the c lie nt a c op y of the br ie f; (4 ) inf or m the c lie nt of the ri g ht t o f ile a pro se response ; and (5) inform the client of t he right t o revie w the re cord a nd of the proc edure s for obtaining a copy of the rec ord. W ils on v . S tate , 40 S.W .3d 192, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (c iting J

oh ns on v . S

tate , 8 85 S.W. 2d

64 1, 64 5–46 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 1 99 4, pe t. ref ' d)). I n this c a se , co un se l con c lud e d his re fe re nc e s to th e matte rs in t he re c or d th a t mi g ht a

rgua bly support an appe al and pr ay ed in his conclusion that we re verse Shaw' s conviction and re mand for a new trial. This is not the corr ect pray er in an An de rs brief. Se e J e ffe ry v . S tate , 903 S.W .2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting corr ect pr ay er in An de rs brief is a ppellate c ourt g rant c ounsel' s motion t o withdraw) . Counsel should not pra y for r ever sal in a brief

filed in support of a motion to withdraw from a fr ivolous appeal. Johnson , 885 S.W .2d at 646 (c iting Sm ith v . S tate , 81 4 S. W.2d 85 8, 85 9 (Tex. App .— Am ari llo 19 91 , n o p e t.) ; Can tu v . S tate , 781 S.W .2d 953, 953 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 1989, no pet.)). We c aution counsel that the proper pray er in a n An de rs brief should ask this Court t o g rant c ounsel' s motion t o withdraw. Se e J e ffe ry , 903 S.W .2d at 779–80. Ba sed on our r eview of

the brief and of c ounsel' s other ac tions in t his appea l, we conc lude that the intent of counse l was to file a f ri v o l o u s ap peal br ief pursua nt to An de rs . I f we have misunderst o o d t h e i m p o rt of this mode of brief ing, w e invite counse l to respond by motion for re h ea ri n g. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON R o g e r S h aw a p p e a l s f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o no nh i s o p e np l e a o f g u i l t y t o a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r y. The c ourt sentenc ed Shaw to t wenty y ear s' imprisonment. Shaw was re prese nted by appointed counsel at trial and by

differ ent appointed counsel on appea l. Shaw' s appellate attorney has filed a brief which we de em to be an An de rs brief. Se e An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 13

Couns e l ma ile d a

c op y of the br ie f to Sha

w on No ve mbe r 1 2, 20 07 , in fo rm ingSha w o f h is ri g ht t o e xami ne the e nti re a pp e llate re c or d an d to file a pr o se re sp on se . Coun se l si mul tane ou sly filed a motion wi t h t his Court seeking to withdraw a s counsel in this appea l. This Court noti fied Sha w that any

pr o s e re sp on se wa s d

ue on or be fo re De c e mbe r 1 7, 20 07 . Sh aw f ile d h is p ro se

re sp on se Marc h 2 4, 20 08

. We the n no te d that the re po rt e r' s re c or d wa s in c omp le te wh e n a pp e llate

c ouns e l f ile d h is An de rs br ie f. On July 1, 20 08 , w e or de re d c ouns e l to supp le me nt h is b ri e f w ith reg ard to the now -filed supplemental repor ter' s rec ord. Counsel's suppleme ntal brief ha s now bee n filed and w e have rec eived the State' s response. We have deter

mined that this appea l is wholly frivolous. We have independe ntly revie wed the c le rk ' s re c or d a

nd the re po rt e r' s r e c or d, and we a g re e that no argua

ble iss ue s su

pp or t an a pp e a l. Se e Bl e ds oev . S

tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).Since we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 2 g ra nt c ouns e l' s re qu e st to wi thd ra w fr om fu rt he r re pr e se ntatio n of Sha

w in thi s c a se . No su

bs tit ute counsel will be a

ppointed. Should S haw wish to seek further review of t his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls, Shaw must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discre tionary revie w or Shaw must file a pro se petition f or discretionar

y revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty d ay s fr o m t h e date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ng that wa s o ve rr

ule d b y thi s Co ur t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary revie w m ust be filed with this Court, afte r which it will be forwa rded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case

. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply

with the require men t s o f Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Proc edure

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 4 We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. 2

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 4, 2008 Date D ecide d: Aug ust 8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh