Order filed April 19, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-17-00254-CR

___________

JOSE CESAR SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 358th 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, the trial court convicted him of 

the offense and assessed 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 examined the record and applicable law and that he has 
2

concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy 

of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record and has advised 

Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. It 

appears that court-appointed counsel has attempted to comply 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 frivolous 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 disagree with court-appointed counsel’s 

conclusion that the appeal 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 arguable 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 TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.13 (West Supp. 2017).
3

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, abate this proceeding, 

and remand the cause 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 Appellant 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 record, which shall 

be filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 1, 2018. 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 accordance 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, 2018

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. 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.