IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00021-CR

CHRISTOPHER BREW,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. FO-10-20300

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Christopher Brew entered a plea of guilty to a charge of evading arrest 

and was placed on deferred adjudication for three years. The State filed a motion to 

adjudicate, and the trial court adjudicated Brew guilty and sentenced him to eighteen 

months in state jail. This appeal ensued. We will affirm.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 

(1967), Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to 

withdraw, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which 
Brew v. State Page 2

an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders; 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.”); 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 is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed us 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) 

provided Appellant with a copy of the record and informed him of his right to file a pro 

se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; 

see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a pro se response.

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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“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 
Brew v. State Page 3

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In accordance with Anders, Appellant’s attorney has asked for permission to 

withdraw as counsel for Appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If 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.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Within five days of the date of this opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this 

opinion and this Court’s judgment to Appellant and to advise him of his right to file a 

petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

 

1 New appellate counsel will not be appointed for Appellant. Should Appellant wish to seek further review 

of this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion 

for rehearing 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. at R. 68.3. Any petition for 

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Brew v. State Page 4

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 23, 2015

Do not publish

[CR25]