O rder filed April 19 , 201 8



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______ 

### No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 2 5 4

- C R

_____ __ ____


### JOSE CESAR SANCHEZ , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 358 th District Court

Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. D

- 16

- 1836

- CR

O R D E R
Jose Cesar Sanchez , Appellant, pleaded not guilty to the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a young child

. After a bench trial, t he trial court convicted h im of
the offense and asses sed his punishment at confinement for life and a $5,000 fine

. We abate the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel asserts that he has professionally and conscientiously exami ne d the record and applicable law and that he has2

concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy
of the br ief , the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record and has advised
A ppellant of h is right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. It appears that c ourt

- appointed counsel has attempted to compl y with the requirements
of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 ( Tex . App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). Appellant has filed a pro se response in which he asserts various issues

. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivo lous and issue an opinion explaining that
it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we dis agree with court

- appointed counsel’s
conclusion th at the ap peal is frivolous. We are of the opinion that there are arguable grounds for an appeal. In this regard, an appeal arising from a contested trial on guilt/innocence is not readily amenable to disposition under Anders

. Additionally, there appears to be ar guable issues with respect to (1) the validity of Appellant’s jury waiver under Article 1.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) the trial court’s refusal to permit Appellant to withdraw any such waiver. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1.13 (West Supp. 2017 ).3

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, abate this proceeding,
and remand the ca u se to the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel.
See Bledsoe , 178 S.W.3d at 826

– 27. We direct the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent A ppellant on appeal. The trial court shall furnish the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of new counsel in its order appointing new
counsel. The order shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s recor d, which shall
be filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 1 , 201 8 . Appellant’s brief is
due to be filed in this court thirty days from the date of the trial court’s appointment
of new counsel. All other appellate deadlines shall be in accorda nce with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The motion to withdraw is granted ; the appeal is abated ; and the cause is
remanded to the trial court in accordance with this order.

PER CURIAM

April 19 , 201 8 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.