NUMBER 13-17-00474-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ROBERT LEE ALEXANDER LEATHERWOOD, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Aransas County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant Robert Lee Alexander Leatherwood was indicted for possession of 

marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less, but more than four ounces, a state jail 

felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(3) (West, Westlaw 

through 2017 1st C.S.). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred 

adjudication and placed Leatherwood on community supervision for two years. The 
2

State filed a second motion to revoke, and Leatherwood pleaded true to the allegations 

in the motion. After the trial court found that Leatherwood violated the conditions of his 

community supervision, it revoked Leatherwood’s community supervision and found him 

guilty of the charged offense. The court sentenced Leatherwood to eighteen months in 

the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with 297 days of credit 

for time served. Determining that the record does not show any arguable, non-frivolous 

issue to raise on appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief in which he reviewed the merits, 

or lack thereof. We affirm.

I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS

Pursuant to Anders v. California, Leatherwood’s counsel filed a brief stating that

he has diligently reviewed the entire record and the applicable law and, in his opinion, this 

appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous because the record reflects no reversible 

error. See 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of 

Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why counsel believes there are 

no meritorious grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“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) 

(en banc).
3

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel 

has demonstrated that he has complied with the requirements of Anders by discussing 

why he has determined that, under controlling authority, any appeal from the judgment 

would be without merit and frivolous. Counsel has also informed this Court, in writing, 

that he has: (1) notified Leatherwood that, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit; (2) 

moved to withdraw as his counsel; (3) provided Leatherwood with a copy of the brief, his 

motion to withdraw, and the record; (4) informed Leatherwood of his right to file a pro se 

response,1to review the appellate record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek 

discretionary review pro se if the court of appeals concludes that the appeal is frivolous; 

and (5) provided Leatherwood with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate 

record, with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.

On December 21, 2017, Leatherwood filed a timely pro se motion for access to the 

appellate record, requesting thirty days from the date he received the appellate record to 

file a pro se response. We granted the motion. The record shows that Leatherwood 

was provided access to a copy of the clerk’s record on January 11, 2018 and to a copy 

of the reporter’s record on January 18, 2018. More than an adequate time has passed, 

 

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) 

(orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
4

and Leatherwood has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have 

found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826–28 (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 requirement of Texas Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. We affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Leatherwood’s attorney has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel for Leatherwood. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see 

also In 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.) (noting that “[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 that was carried with the case on December 19, 2017. 

Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of 
5

the opinion and the judgments to Leatherwood and to advise him of his right to file a 

petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 

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

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

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

Delivered and filed the

29th day of March, 2018.

 

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Leatherwood 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 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 that 

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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 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. R. 68.4.