Opinion filed July 25, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00260-CR

__________

JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-22-0982-CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Appellant, James Earl Miles, of the third-degree felony 

offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018); 62.051(a), (c)(7) (West 

Supp. 2023). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included 

testimony from the registration officer who discovered unreported social media 

accounts that were associated with Appellant. This discovery occurred after the 
2

officer’s first meeting with Appellant, wherein she explained the registration 

requirements and Appellant indicated that he understood. The jury found Appellant 

guilty of the offense. Appellant pled true to an enhancement paragraph—aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon—which enhanced his punishment range to that of a 

second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019). The jury 

assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirteen years in the Correctional 

Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the trial court 

sentenced Appellant accordingly.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to 

withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and 

conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are 

no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of 

the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both 

the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right 

to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also 

advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have 

reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a 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). 
3

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently 

reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal 

exist.

1

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS

JUSTICE

July 25, 2024

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

1

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.