IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00316-CR

STANLEY YARBOROUGH,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23,744

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stanley Yarborough was charged with indecency with a child. He pled guilty. 

The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Yarborough on community 

supervision for 10 years. Seven years later, the trial court revoked Yarborough’s 

community supervision, adjudicated Yarborough’s guilt, and sentenced Yarborough to 

three years in prison.
Yarborough v. State Page 2

Yarborough’s appellate attorney filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Yarborough was informed 

of his right of access to the appellate record and his right to submit a brief or other 

response on his own behalf. He did not request access to the appellate record and did 

not submit a brief or response.

Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel reviewed the reporter’s record 

and clerk’s record, the sentence received by Yarborough, and the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support revocation of Yarborough’s deferred adjudication community 

supervision. As part of his brief, counsel reviews the testimony supporting the grounds 

for revocation. He notes there were multiple grounds asserted and that only one 

ground was necessary to affirm the revocation. Counsel concludes that counsel is 

unable to find any non-frivolous error. 

Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and 

we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. 
Yarborough v. State Page 3

Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). 

Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436. 

An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 511.

After reviewing counsel's brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine 

the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Should Yarborough 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 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 

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 and all copies of the 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011). 

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. See also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Yarborough is granted, 

and counsel is permitted to withdraw from representing Yarborough. Additionally, 
Yarborough v. State Page 4

counsel must send Yarborough a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's 

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In 

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 3, 2015

Do not publish 

[CR25]