Opinion issued October 31 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 22
- 00261
- CR

——————————— KORI LEANNE DELCOURT , Appella nt

V. STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 17 4 th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1660661

MEMORANDUM OPINION Kori Leanne Delcourt was found guilty after a jury trial of the state jail felony offense of injury to a child by criminal negligence and appeals the trial court’s judgment finding her guilty and sentencing her to 180 days ’ confinement , suspended for three years’ community supervision

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE § 22.04(a)(3), (g).2

The trial court certified that this was not a plea

- bargain case, and that Delco urt had the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP . P . 25.2(a)(2). Delcourt timely appealed , and appellate counsel was appointed. Appellate counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted an Anders brief , 1 declaring there are no nonfrivolous bases for appeal. Delcourt did not file a pro se brief, and the State waived its right to respond to the Anders brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm

. Anders Procedures When appointed counsel believes an appeal by a criminal defendan t is frivolous, counsel may file both a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008 ) (citing Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 74 4 (1967) ) . An Anders brief reflects the fact that counsel has adequatel y researched the case before deciding to withdraw. Id. at 40 7 . It sets
out counsel’s due diligence, informs the client, and provides a roadmap for the appellate court ’ s review of the record. Id. It also assists the client by providing citations to the record if s he wishes to exercise h er right to file a pro se brief. Id. at 407

– 08. An Anders brief is appropriate only when counsel has mastered the record and the evidence and determines that there are no sustainable grounds for appeal.
B anks v. State , 341 S.W.3d 428, 430 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, order), disp. on merits , No. 01

- 08

- 00286

- CR, 2010 WL 1053218 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st

1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).3

Dist.] Mar. 11, 2010, no pet. ) (mem. op. , not designated for publication )

. If counsel finds that th e appeal contain s potentially meritorious grounds, counsel must file a merits brief with the court. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 40 6 n.9 ; Banks , 341 S.W.3d at 430; see Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. If counsel determines that potential grounds for appeal exist but that those grounds would be frivolous, counsel must explain those ground s for appeal with citations to applicable legal authority and pertinent evidence. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 407; B anks , 341 S.W.3d at 431

. C ounsel should “point out where pertinent testimony may be found in the record, refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court ’ s ruling, and discuss either why the trial court ’ s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court.” High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The purpose of this requirement is to convince the courts of appeals that counsel has given due consideration t o any potential ground for appeal before dismissing it as frivolous. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 407

– 09 (stating court s of appeals will not grant motion to withdraw if Anders brief does not sho w that record was carefully reviewed ); High , 573 S.W.2d a t 811 (describing importance of disclosing both legal authority and potential grounds for appeal); Banks , 341 S.W.3d at 431 (same)

.4

Even when counsel believes that there are no grounds that might convince an appellate court, counsel must still file a n Ande rs brief, and the Anders brief must direct the court of appeals to the portions of the record that could have created error but did not. Banks , 314 S.W.3d at 431. C ounsel may not provide a mere conclusory statement that no grounds for appeal exist. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 406

– 07; see Anders , 386 U.S. at 74 2 . While the courts of appeals have a supervisory role, they should not have to pour over the record to determine that counsel ha s completed

a thorough review of the record. Banks , 341 S.W.3d at 431

. If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree that the appeal is frivo lous, we should grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw, Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409

. In this Anders brief, counsel has discussed that this appeal is meritless and frivolous because the record contains no reversible error. Counsel specifically discussed and briefed: (1 ) voir dire; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel ; (4) the jury charge; and (5) Delcourt’s punishment

. Delcourt did not file a response, and the State declined to respond to the Anders brief.5

If appellant’s counsel moves to withdraw because an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the Anders requirements , we must independently examine the record to see if there is any arguable ground that might be raised on an appellant’s behalf. Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 511. When performing this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments raised in the Anders brief, and any issues that an appellant might raise in a pro se brief. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. Only afterward may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988).
We have scrutinized counsel’s Anders brief, the Sta te’s waiver of its right to respond to the Anders brief, and the appellate record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is meritless and frivolous. Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Conclusion We grant counsel’s motion to w ithdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Counsel must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5(c).

Sarah Beth Landau Justice Panel consists of Justices Kelly , L andau , and Farris. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).