An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 75, 911

I N RE DAVI D S CHUL M AN

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR W RI T OF M ANDAMUS I N C AU S E N0 . 0 7 - 0 7 - 0 0 6 6 - CR F RO M T HE SEV EN TH C O U R T O F A PPE A LS W I LLI AM S ON CO UNTY

C OCHR AN , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion o f the u n a n im o u s C o u rt.
OP I NI ON
M r . D avi d S ch ul m an, t he appoi nt ed appe l l at e at t or neyfor M ar l y n Sol anas , fi l ed an appl i cat i on for a w r i t of m andamus w i t h t hi s C our t cl ai m i ng t hat t he Sevent h C our t of A ppeal s vi ol at ed a mi ni s t er i al dut y w hen i t or der ed hi m t o fi le a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as
cou nsel al on g w i t h h i s A nd ers bri ef. T hat br i ef co ncludes, as all A nd ers br i efs concl ude, 1
t hat hi s cl i ent ’ s appea l i s “fr i vol ous , ” but M r . Schul m an ar gues t hat , w hil e co uns el for t heIn re Schulman Pag e 2

defe ns e may fi l e an Ande rs b rie f , h e is n o t o b lig a ted to sim u ltan e o u sly f ile a m o tio n to wi t h d r a w f

r o m r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Th i s i s b a c k war d s . Und e r b o t h Su p r e me Cou r t and Texas p re c e d e n t, w h e n c o u n se l f iles a m o tio n to w ith d ra w b e c a u se h e b e liev e s th e a p p e a l is frivol ous , he may s i m ul t aneous l yfi l e an A nd ers br i ef. A n A nd ers br i ef may not be fi l ed

w i t hout a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw , as t he s ol e purpos e of an A nd ers br i ef i s t o expl ai n and

s uppor t t he mot i on t o w i t hdr aw . T he cour t of appe als d id not er r , m uch l es s vi ol at e a
m i nis t eri al du t y . W e t herefore den yrel i ef on t his app l i cat i on for a w ri t of m and am us. I
. Pur s uant t o a pl ea ba r gai n, M ar l y n Sol anas pl ed gui l t y t o i nt oxi cat i on m ans l aught er i n W i l l i amson C ount y . She w as s ent ence d t o t en y ear s ’ confi nement and a $2, 500 fi ne, but t he t r i al cour t pl ace d h er o n co m m uni t ys uper vi s i on. O ver a y earl at er , t he St at e fi l ed a

m oti on t o revok e, al l eging t hat she had vi olat ed t erm s of h er com m un i t ysupervi si on . M s. S o lan a s p led “ T ru e ” to th e S tate ’s a lleg a tio n s, a n d th e trial ju d g e re v o k e d h e r c o m m u n ity

s u p e rv is io n a n d s e n te n c e d h e r t o te n y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. M s . Sol anas fi l ed a t i m el yno ti ce of appea l and R el at or , M r . D avi d Schul m an, w as
a p p o in ted to re p re se n t h e r. T h e a p p e a l w a s tra n sf e rre d to th e S e v e n th C o u rt o f A p p e a ls in A m ar i l l o. O n M ay8, 2007, M r . Schul m an fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef w i t h t he cour t of appe al s and

m a iled a c o p yo f

th is b rie f

to M s. S o lan a s, in f

o rm in g h e r o f

h is a c tio n s a n d o f

h e r rig h t to

r evi ew t he r ecor d of t he pr ocee di ngs and s ubm i t a pro se b ri e f if s h e s o d e s ir e d
. M r . Schul m an di d not s i m ul t aneous l yfi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el w i t h t heIn re Schulman Pag e 3

T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 2 6. 04 (j )( 2) ; se eals o T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 .5 (“ An a pp e llate 2 court may , on appropriate ter ms and conditions, permit an attorne y to withdraw fr om repr esentinga par

ty in the appellate court.” ). See E x parte Owens , 206 S.W .3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that the filing of 3 an An de rs brie f i n th e c ourt of a pp e a ls d oe s n ot r e lie ve de fe ns e c ouns e l of the duty to i nf or m a defe ndant that he ha s a right to file a pro se petition in the Court of Crimi nal Appeals). Mr . Sc hu lma

n a lso a dv ise d th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls t hat “ in at le a st two -t

hir ds of the c a se [s] 4 in which the under signe d has filed a n An de rs brief during his c are er, he has subseque ntly been contac ted by

those clients see king a dvice on pr ocedur al questions perta ining to either the An de rs brief or the appe al in g ener al.” cour t of appe al s , al t hough t he cl er k of t he cour t i nfor m ed hi m t hat he w as r equi r ed t o do s o. I ns t ead, he fi l ed a document ent i t l ed “Respons e t o C l er k’ s I ns t r uct i ons R egar di ng M ot i on t o W i t hdr aw . ” H e expl ai ned t hat , under A rt icl e 2 6. 04( j ) ( 2) of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e, he w as r equi r ed to “repr es ent t he def endantunt i l char ges ar e di s m i s s ed, t he defe ndant i s acqui t t ed, appea l s ar e exha us t ed, or t he at t or neyi s r el i eved of hi s dut i es by t he

c o u rt o r re p la c e d b y o th e r c o u n s e l a f te r a f in d in g o f g o o d c a u s e is e n te re d o n th e re c o rd .” 2 M r . Schul m an al s o s t at ed t hat he w as r equi r ed t o i nfor m hi s cl i ent of herr i ght t o fi l e a pro
s e pet i t i on for di s cr et i onar y r evi ew t o t hi s C our t even t hough he fi l ed an A nd ers b r i e f
. He 3

n o ted th a t p rio r c a se s a lso im p lied th a t h e m u st c o n tin u e to a n s w e r q u e stio n s p o se d b y h is cl i ent t hat “ar e r eas onabl y r el at ed t o t hi s cas e and/ or t he proc edur es t o be fol l ow ed i n s eeki ng f u rth e r rev iew .” M r. S c h u lm a n a rg u e d th a t, f ro m a m o ra l sta n d p o in t, “ h is du tyto a ss ist [ h is

c l i e n t ] i s n o t a n d c a n n o t b e e x t i n g u i s h e d b yt h e f i l i n g o f an A nd ers b ri e f
. ” F inally , M r. 4 S c h u lm a n lam e n ted th a t “ th e p ro c e d u re s u se d in th e v a rio u s C o u rts o f A p p e a ls re g a rd in g th is iss u e a re w h o llyin c o n sis ten t. S o m e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls re q u ire c o u n se l to f ile a m o tio n toIn re Schulman Pag e 4

So lan as v . S

tate , No. 07-07-0066- CR (Tex. App.– Amarillo, May 25, 2007) (

per curiam 5 order) (not designated f

or publication). Id. at 4. 6 An de rs , 386 U.S. at 744. An de rs wa s n ot t he fi rs t Su

pr e me Court

op ini on de a lin gwi th 7 the appointed attorney ’s duty of zealous represe ntation on appea l or of his obligation to file a motion to withdrawas counse l when he de termines that an a ppeal would be frivolous. In Ellis v. w i t hdr aw , s om e t ake no pos i t i on, ot her s do not r equi r e couns el t o w i t hdr aw . ” H e r eques t ed t hat t he S event h C our t of A ppeal s abandon i t s “pol i cy ” of r equi r i ng an at t or neyw ho fi l es an A nd ers b ri e f

to s im u lta n e o u s ly f

ile a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a s c o u n s e l. A ft er r ece i vi ng M r . Schul m an’ s r es pons e, t he cour t of appea l s ent er ed an or der

re q u e s ti n g h im to re c o n sid e r h is re f u sa l to f ile a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d a f f o rd e d h im ad d it ion al t im e to d o so . T h e c o u rt n o ted th at M r. S ch u lm an ’s resp o n se w as “ v ery 5 pr i nci pl ed, ” but hi s “i ns i s t ence on his dut yt o r epr es ent A ppel l ant aft er t he fi l i ng of an A nd ers br i ef i s m i s pl ace d and i s , i n fac t , an i m pedi m ent t o t hi s C our t ’ s r ol e i n r evi ew i ng an A nd ers appea l
. ” I ns t ead of compl y i ng w i t h t he cour t ’ s or der , M r . Schul m an fi l ed an 6 appl i cat i on for w r i t of m andamus and/ or pr ohi bi t i on w i t h t hi s C our t
. W e ent er ed an or der g ra n tin g M r. S c h u lm a n ’s m o tio n to sta y th e p ro c e e d in g s an d a f f o rd in g th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls an oppor t uni t yt o r es pond. T he O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al of Texas fi l ed a r es pons e on behal f of t he cour t of appe al s . W e fi l ed and s et t hi s m at t er for cons i der at i on. II. A cr i m i nal defe ns e at t or ney ’ s dut y i s t o zea l ous l yr epr es ent t he i nt er es t s of hi s cl i ent
o n ap p ea l. If the ap p o inted att o rne yfin d s the “c ase to b e w h o ll y frivo lou s, af ter a 7In re Schulman Pag e 5

United States , 356 U.S. 674 (1958), dec ided nine year s befor e An de rs , the Supreme Court stated: I f c ouns e l is c onvin c e d, a ft e r c on sc ie nti ou s inve sti g atio n, that th e a pp e a l is frivo lou s, of

c ours e , h e may

a sk to w ith dr aw o n th at a c c ount. I f t he c ourt is satis fi e d th at c ouns e l ha s d ili g e ntl y inv e sti g ate d th e po ssible gro un ds of a pp e a l, and agree s with counsel’s eva luation of the ca se, then lea ve to withdrawmay

be allowed a nd leave to appea l may

be denie d. Id . at 675. An de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4; se eals o McCoy v . Court of Appeals of W isconsin, District I, 8 486 U.S. 429, 437 (1988) (statingthat both retaine d and appointed a ppellate attorney s have a “duty to withdraw” as counse l when they conclude that an appe al would be f rivolous, but noting that appointed counse l “is prese nted with a dilemma bec ause w ithdrawa l is not poss ible without le ave of c ourt , a nd a dv isi ngthec ourt

of c ouns e l’ s o pin ion

that th e a pp e a l is frivo lou s w ou ld a pp e ar t o c on fl ic t w iththea dv oc ate ’s duty to t he c lie nt. It is we ll s e ttl e d, ho we ve r, that th is dil e mma mus t bere so lve d b y

inf or min gthe c ourt

of c ouns e l’ s c on c lus ion .” ); W ils on v . S tate , 40 S.W .3d 192, 196 (Tex. App.– Texarkana 2001) (“ Under An de rs and its prog eny , if an a ppointed attorney conclude s that his client's a ppeal is without merit, he must (1) so inform the c ourt, (2) seek pe rmission to withdraw , and (3) file a brief ‘ ref erring to a

ny thing in the r ecord that might ar gu ab l y s u p p o rtth e ap p ea l
. ’” ) ( qu o t i n g McCoy and An de rs ). Se eAn de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4. As the Sup re me Court e xpla ine d, the atto rn e y ’s mot ion to 9 withdraw must, however, beacc ompanied by a brie f re fer

ringto any

thing in the r ecord that might arguably

support the appe al. A copy of counse l’s brief should be furnished theind ig e nt a

nd tim e a llo we d h im t o r a ise any po int s th at he c ho os e s; t

he c ourt

– no t c ouns e l–t

he n p ro c e e ds , a ft e r a

fu ll e xami natio n o f a ll thepr oc e e din g s, to decide whether

the ca se is wholly

frivolous. I f it so finds it may grant c ounsel’s reque st to withdraw and dismiss the appea l insofar a s fede ral re quirements ar e c on c e rn e d, or

pr oc e e d to a

de c isi on on the me ri ts, if

state law s o r e qu ir e s. Id. In Texas, an An de rs brief ne ed not spec ifically advanc e “a

rguable” points of error

if counsel c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n o f it, h e sh o u ld so a d v ise th e c o u rt a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to

w i t hdr aw . ” I t i s t he mot i on to w it h d raw t hat i s r equi r ed i n t hi s s i t uat i on. T he s o- cal l ed

8

“ A nd ers ” b rief

ac co m p an ies t h e m o ti o n to w it h d raw as a n assu ran ce to the ap p ell ate c o u rt t hat t he at t or neyhas i ndeed made a t hor ough and cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on of t he r ecor d, has pr ovi ded t he appe l l at e cour t w i t h t he appr opr i at e fa ct s of t he ca s e and i t s pr ocedur al hi s t or y , and has poi nt ed out any pot ent i al l y pl aus i bl e poi nt s of er r or . I n A nd ers , t he 9In re Schulman Pag e 6

finds none, but it must provide rec ord re fer ence s to the fac ts and proce dural history and set out pertinent leg al authorities. Se eHa wk ins v . S tate , 112 S.W .3d 340, 343-44 (Te x . App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Id. at 742-43. In An de rs , the appointed a ppellate attorney

wrote the court of a

ppeals the 10 followingletter:

Iwi ll n ot f

ile a brie f o n a

pp e a l a s I am of the op ini on

that th e reis n o me ri t to the appea l. Ihave visited a nd communicated w ith Mr. Anders a nd have e xpla ine d my

vie ws and

op ini on s to him

. . . . He wi sh e s to fi le a

brie f i n th is matter on his own beha lf. Id. at 742. Id. at 742-44. 11 McCoy, 48 6 U .S. at 43 6 ( c iti ngAB A St and ard s f or Cr imi na l Just ic e , Co mme nta ry to 12 4– 3. 9 ( 2d e d. 19 80 )) . T he Sup re me Court the n q uo te d th e Se ve nth

Cir c uit : A lawyer, a fter a ll, has no duty , indeed no right, to peste r a c ourt with frivolous argume nts , whic h is to s ay argume nts that c ann ot c on c e iva bly pe rs ua de the c ourt , so if he believe s in good f aith that there areno other a rguments that he ca

n make S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e a p p e llate a tto rn e y c o u ld n o t f u lf ill h is o b lig a tio n to re p re se n t h is cl i ent byfi l i ng a l et t er m erel yst at i ng t hat he has con cl ud ed that t he ap peal i s fr iv olous. 10 Such a “no- m er i t l et t er , ” s et t i ng out not hi ng m or e t h an a “b are concl us i on, ” i s not enough t o as s ur e t he appe l l at e cour t s t hat t he at t or neyhas m ade a t hor ough r evi ew of t he r ecor d and th e a p p lica b le la w , b u t h a s n o n e th e les s c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re is n o p lau sib le b a sis f o r a p p e a l. 11
T he at t or ney ’ s dut yt o w i t hdr aw is b as ed upon hi s pr ofes s i onal and et hi cal

res po nsi bil i t i es as an off i cer of t he co urt no t t o burden t he j ud i ci al sy st em w i t h fals e cl ai m s, fr i vol ous pl eadi ngs , or bur dens om e t i m e demands
. T he Supr eme C our t has s t at ed, N e ith e r p a id n o r a p p o in ted c o u n se l m a yd e lib e ra tely m isle a d th e c o u rt w ith r es pectt o ei t her t he fact s or t he l aw , or cons um e t he t i m e and t he ener gi es of t h e c o u r t o r t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t yb ya d v a n c i n g f r i v o l o u s a r g u me n t s . An a tto rn e y , w h e th e r ap p o in ted o r pa id , is t h e re f o re u n d e r an e th ica l o b lig a tio n to re f u se to p ro se c u te a f

riv o lo u s a p p e a l. 12In re Schulman Pag e 7

on his c lie nt' s b e ha lf

he is h on or

bo un d to so a dv ise the c ourt an d s e e k le av eto with draw a s c ou ns e l. Id. (qu o t i n g United States v. Edwards , 777 F.2d 364, 365 ( 7 Cir.1985) (empha sis added))
. th As Professors D ix and Da wson have explained in their treatise, States have a

leg itimate interest in beingable to deve lop and implement proce dures whic h identify frivolous appe als and pe rmit resolution of them without the cost of pr oviding the de fenda nt-appe llant with counsel’s help in preparingand submitt ing a

full merits brief. Such pr ocedur es must also, of cour se, protec t other a pp e lla nts wi th n on frivo lou s a

pp e a ls f ro m be ingde nie d th e ir

ri ght t o f ull a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l in

pu rs uin gtho se no nf

ri vo lou s a pp e a ls. 42 G EORGE E. D I X & R OB E R T O. D AW S ON , T EX A S P RACT I CE : C RI M I N A L P R AC TI C E AND P ROCE D U RE § 24.148, at 327 (2d e d. 2001). Se eJ oh ns on v . S

tate , 885 S.W .2d 641, 647 n.1 (Tex. App.–Waco 1994, pet. re f’d) , 13 modified by

W ils on v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 693 (Tex. App.– Waco 1997, no pet.) ( “Af ter concludingthat the appe al is frivolous, the attorne y is under a du ty

to reque st permission from this court to withdraw fr om the appea l”; stating that an An de rs brief is “ a brie f in support of the motion to withdraw ”). Se eAn de rs , 386 U.S. at 745 (notingthat the An de rs brie f w ou ld “ ind uc e the c ourt

to 14 pursue a ll the more vig orously its own review be cause of the re ady ref ere nces not only

to the re c or d, but a lso to t

he le g a l a uth oriti e s a s f

ur nis he d b y c ouns e l.” ); Hi

gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [ panel op.] 1978) (by filing a n An de rs brief “ which supplies re ady re fe re nc e s to there c or d a nd le g a l a uth oriti e s, c ouns e l a ids the re vie wi ngc ourt in s tud yinga c old C o u n s e l’ s o b lig a tio n to h is c lien t is to se e k lea v e to w ith d ra w a s c o u n se l. H is obl i gat i on t o t he ap p el l at e cour t s i s t o as s ur e t hem, t hr ough t he mechani s m of an A nd ers br i ef, t hat , aft er t hor ough i nves t i gat i on and r es ear ch, hi s r eques t i s w el l founded. 13
T he A nd ers b rie f

re f lec ts th e f

a c t th a t th e a p p o in ted a tto rn e yh a s a d e q u a tely

re se a rc h e d th e c a se b e f o re re q u e stin g to w ith d ra w f ro m f u rth e r rep re se n tatio n . It a lso se ts
ou t t he att orney ’s du e dil i gen ce i nv est i gati on on beh al f of his cl i ent. Ithas an a dd i t i on al use fo r t h e a p p ell ate c o u rts: i t pro v ides them w it h a ro ad m ap fo r t h eir review o f th e re co rd beca us e t he cour t i t s el f m us t be as s ur ed that t he at t or neyhas m ade a l egal l ycor r ect d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e a p p e a l is f riv o lo u s . It h a s a n a d d iti o n a l u se f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t: i t 14In re Schulman Pag e 8

rec ord.”)
. Se eAn de rs , 386 U.S. at 744 (notingthat the attorne y must furnish his indi g ent client 15 with a copy

of the An de rs brief r efe rringto any thing in the r ecord that might arguably support the appea l,” and that de fenda nt may “ra ise any

points that he chooses” in a pro s ebrief)
. An de rs , 386 U.S. at 745. 16 Se eJ e ffre yv . S tate , 903 S.W .2d 776, 779-80 (Te x . App.–Dallas 1995, no pe t.) 17 (d i s cu s s i n g An de rs proce dure a nd stating that “[i] f an attorney believes the appea l is frivolous, he must withdraw from r epre sentingthe appe llant. To withdraw f rom repr esentation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw ac companied by a brie f showingthe appe llate cour t that the appe al is frivolous.”) ( citations omitt ed). Smith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259, 276 (2000). 18 Id. 19 Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [ panel op.]1978) (a dopting the 20 An de rs proce dure a

nd sug g estingthat the Supreme Court mandated that par ticular proc edure for p ro v id e s h im w ith a p p ro p ria te c itatio n s to th e re c o rd if h e w ish e s to e x e rc ise h is rig h t to f ile

a pro se b rie f
. A n d it h a s a n a d d it io n a l u se f o r th e a p p o in ted a tto rn e y : itp ro tec ts h im 15 “from t he co nst antl y i ncreasi ng charge t hat he w as i neff ect i ve an d h ad n ot handled t he case

w ith th a t d ili g e n c e to w h ich a n in d ig e n t d e f e n d a n t is en tit led .” D e sp ite its h e lp f u ln e ss to 16 al l conce r ned, t he A nd ers br i ef i s onl y t he prove r bi al “t ai l ”; t he mot i on t o w i t hdr aw i s “t he d o g .” 17 O f cour s e, t he A nd ers pr ocedur e i s not cons t i t ut i onal dogm a. I t i s “mer el yone met hod

o f sa tisf y in g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e C o n stitu tio n f

o r in d ig e n t c rim in a l a p p e a ls.” T e x a s is 18 free t o ad o p t o t her procedu res as l on g as t hey m eet fede ral con st i t uti on al requi rem ents
. 19 A l t hough T exas m aychoos e t o adopt a di ffe r ent m ec h an ism for deal i ng w i t h fr i vol ous appea l s , i t has t hus farfol l ow ed t he A nd ers pr ocedur e. 20In re Schulman Pag e 9

fe de ra l c on sti tut ion a l pu

rp os e s) ; se eals o S

taf for d v . S tate , 8 13 S.W. 2d

50 3, 50 9- 11 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1991). In this Court’s mostrec ent ca ses, Ex parte Owe ns , 2 06 S.W. 3d 67 0 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 2006), a

nd Me za v . S tate , 2 06 S.W. 3d

68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ), we have c ontin ue d to apply the An de rs brief pr ocedur es. Se eSta ffo rd, 813 S.W .2d at 510. A def endant who f

ails to keep his attorne y

informed 21 of his curr ent addr ess forf eits the right to rece ive a c opy of the An de rs brief a

nd the right to file a pro s ebrief. Go nzale

s v . S tate , 903 S.W .2d 404, 405 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1995, no pet.). Se eJ oh ns on v . S

tate , 885 S.W .2d 641, 647 n.1 (Tex. App.–Waco 1994, pet. re f’d) , 22 modified by

W ils on v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 693 (Tex. App.– Waco 1997, no pet.) ( noting that
“ [a]lt ho ugh a va ri e ty of me tho ds of

de mon str atin gthat th e c lie nt h a s b e e n in fo rm e d o f h is pro- se ri ghts have be e n util ize d a nd a c c e pte d b y

the c ourt s, we be lie ve that th e be st a pp ro a c h is to provide this court a

copy of a le tter sent to the def

endant with the attorney' s brief in support of the motion to withdraw in which counse l has outlined the defe ndant’s pro- se rights and the steps nece ssary to exercise those rights.”). Under the newly

revised Rule 25.2 of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e and the revised Ce rtificate of Appe al form, the de fenda nt will have bee n informed of his right to file a pro s ePDR at the time that he makes a decision to file a noticeof appe al. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2 (d), (e ), (h ); Ap pe nd ix (Ce rt if ic atio n o f D e fe nd a

nt’ s Ri ght o f A

pp e a l) . T his inf

or matio n w ill be repeate d at the time that counse l sends the def endant a copy of the c ourt of appe als’s opinion if the def endant ha s kept the attorne y informed of

his then-cur

rent mailingaddre ss. T EX . R. A PP . P. 48.4. Some courts of a

ppeals have eve n implemented a he lpful proce dure in whic h they reiter ate the a

ppellant’s right to file a pro s ePDR and se t out th e tim e lin e fo r d oin gso in t he ir opinion. Se e, e .g., Glov e r v . S tate , N o . 0 6
- 0 7
- 0 0 0 6 0
- CR , 2 0 0 7 T e x. Ap p . L E X I S 9 1 6 2 ( T e x. App.– Texarkana , Nov. 20, 2007, pet. re f’d) (not designated f or publication). In Glover , an An de rs case , the Texarkana Court of Appea ls agree d with appellate c ounsel that there wer e no A l t hough t he defens e at t or neyi s r equi r ed t o fil e a mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w a t t h e s a me t i me t hat he fi l es an A nd ers b rie f , the c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls w ill n o t gr antth a t m o tio n u n til : (1) t he at t orney has sent a cop yof h i s A nd ers br i ef t o hi s cl i ent al ong w i t h a l et t er expl ai ni ng t hat t he def

endanthas t he r i ght t o fi l e a pro se b r ie f w ith in th irty day s , and he ha s ens ur ed t hat hi s cl i ent has , at s om e poi nt , been i nform ed of hi s r i ght t o fi l e a pro se P DR; 21 ( 2) t he at t or neyhas i nfor m ed t he cour t of appe al s t hat he has per for m ed t he above du t i es; 22In re Schulman Pag e 10

arguable points of er

ror a nd noted: Sin c e we a gre e thi s c a se pr e se nts no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a lso , in a c c or da nc e wi th An de rs, grant c ounsel’s re quest to withdraw f rom furthe r represe ntation of Glover in this case. No substitute counsel will be a ppointed. Should Glover wish to seek fu rt he r r e vie w o f t

his c a se by

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls, Gl ov e r m us t e ith e r r e ta in a

n atto rn e y to f ile a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w o r G lov e r m

us t file a pro s epetition for discre tionary revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of e ither this opinion or the last timely

motion for rehe aringthat was ove rruled by this Court. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8. 2. Any

pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d w iththi s Co ur t, afte r which it will be for

war ded to the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case
. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply

with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure
. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. Id. at *7-8 n.1. While this advisory by the cour t of appe als is not required, it is commenda ble. See J ohnson , 885 S.W .2d at 647 n.3 (a dopting a thirty -day

time period in which the 23 defe ndant may

file a pro s eresponsive brief). T his brief is not one subjec t to the require ments of T EX . R. A PP . P. 74 because its purpose is not to permit the court of a ppeals to dec ide the ca se on the merits; it is i ntended only to alert the a

ppellate c ourt to any

matters that the de fenda

nt believes might be arguable in a brief on the me rits. W ils on v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–Waco 1997, no pet.) ( concludingthat “the pro s eresponse need not c omply with the rules of a ppellate pr ocedur e in orde r to be c onsidered. Rather, the r esponse should identify for the cour t those issues which the indig ent appe llant believes the c ourt should consider in dec iding wh e the r t he c a se pr e se nts any

me ri toriou s is su e s. ” ). Thus , th e de fe nd ant’ s pro s e“brie f” is not an example of a

forbidden hy

brid repr esentation because the pro s efi lin gis n ot a me ri ts b ri e f, it is merely an informa l opportunity

for the indig ent def

endant to pre sent what he believes a re c la ims or iss ue s o r a

re a s o f p ro c e dura l or

su bs tanti ve c on c e rn

that argua

bly de se rv e a fu ll m e ri ts brief by a sec ond attorney
. Se eBle ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Sta ffo rd, 813 S.W .2d at 510-11. 24 ( 3) t he def

endanthas had t i m e i n w hi ch t o fi l e a pro se r es pons e; and 23 ( 4) t he cour t of appeal s has i t s el f re vi ew ed t he re cor d, t he A nd ers br i ef, and any pro se br i ef. 24
A ft er t he compl et i on of t hes e four s t eps , t he cour t of appea l s w i l l ei t her agr ee t hat t he appe al is w h o lly f

riv o lo u s, g ra n t th e a tto rn e y ’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w , an d d ism iss th e a p p e a l, or it w illIn re Schulman Pag e 11

Id. 25 Se eTe lle

z v . S tate , 880 S.W .2d 247, 248 (Tex. App.– El Paso 1994, no pet.) (pe r 26 curiam) (in its review, a

ppellate c ourt found arguable e rror reg ardingvoluntariness of c onfession, there fore it abated the a

ppeal a nd rema nded it to the trial court f or appointment of ne w counse l); se ege ne ra lly , D I X & D AW S ON , su pra note 12, at §§ 24.149-24.156. See Sm ith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259, 280-84 (2000). 27 Application for Writ of Manda mus at 3 (citingto his Response to Cl erk’ s Instructions 28 Re g ard ingMo tio n to With dr aw) . Re lator state s th at he mus t “ c ontin ue to o ff e r a ns we rs to questions posed by

Appellant that ar e re asonably related to this case a

nd/or proce dure to be fo llo we d in

se e kin gfu

rt he r r e vie w. ¶ F ina lly , f

ro m a mor a l st and

po int , th e un de rs igne d s ug g e sts that his duty

to assist Appellant is not and cannot be e x tinguished by the filingof an An de rs brief.” det er m i ne t hat t her e may be pl aus i bl e gr ounds for appea l
. I f t he cour t of appe al s deci des 25
t hat t her e ar e any col or abl e cl ai m s for appea l , i t w i l l : ( 1) gr ant t he or i gi nal at t or ney ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw ; and ( 2) abat e t he ca s e and s end i t back t o t he t r i al cour t t o appoi nt a new at t or neyw i t h di r ect i ons t o fi l e a mer i t s br i ef. 26
III
. T h is p a rticu lar p ro c e d u re , th o u g h n o t re q u ire d b yth e f e d e ra l co n stitu tio n , se e m s to 27

w o rk re lativ e lyw e ll i n T e x a s. W e se e n o re a so n to c h a n g e it at th is tim e . A n d u n d e r th is pr ocedur e, t he Sevent h C our t of A ppeal s appr opr i at el yor der ed t he R el at or , M r . Schul m an, t o fil e a m oti on t o w i t hd raw as a con dit i on preceden t t o fil i ng his A nd ers b ri e f
. T he R el at or , i n hi s appl i cat i on for a w r i t of m andamus, ar gues t hat he s houl d not be

re q u ire d to f

ile a m o ti o n to w it h d ra w b e c a u se h e still h a d “ leg a l an d m o ra l d u ties to h is cl i ent
. ” H e ar gues t hat t he di s cus s i on i n A nd ers conce r ni ng t he r equi r em en t tha t an

28In re Schulman Pag e 12

Id. at 9. 29 Smith v. Robbins , 528 U.S. 259, 265 (2000). 30 Id
. 31 app oint ed at t orney w ho fi nd s t hat any app eal w ou l d be fri vo l ou s m ust fi l e a m o tio n to

w i t hd raw w as “ ob iter d icta , h av ing n o im p o rt to the co re h o lding o f th e c ase . ” W e a re 29

u n a b l e t o f

i n d a n ya u t h o r i t yf

r om a ny j ur i s d i c t i o n f

o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s di s cus s i on of t he re qui r ement t hat couns el fi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw i s m er e obi t er d icta
. I ns t ead, i n Sm i t h v. R obbi ns , t he Supr eme C our t dr ew back fr om t he pr opos i t i on t hat t he “A nd ers br i ef” pr ocedur e w as a cons t i t ut i onal r equi r ement
. I t concl u d ed that “[t ] he pr ocedur e w e s ket ched i n A nd ers i s a pr ophy l act i c one; t he St at es ar e fr ee t o adopt di ffe r ent p ro c e d u re s, so lo n g a s th o se p ro c e d u re s a d e q u a tely sa f e g u a rd a d e f

e n d a n t’s rig h t to a p p e llate

c o u n s e l.” 30
T he R el at or cor r ect l y not es t hat t her e i s a need for uni for m pr ocedur es for t hos e ca s es i n w hi ch an A nd ers br i ef i s fi l ed, es peci al l yas t he Texas R ul es of A ppell ate P roce dur e do not pr ovi de anyexpl i ci t gui dance
. T he A nd ers pr ocedur e i s sim pl yone j udi ci al l ycr eat ed, p rop h y lacti c m ea n s tha t t h e S u p re m e C o u rt su g g ested to sa fe g u ard a d ef en d an t’ s
cons t i t ut i onal r i ght t o appel l at e couns el
. T he Texas L egi s l at ur e i s fr ee t o adopt ot her m eans 31 sh o u ld it so c h o se , a n d th e c o u rts o f T e x a s c o u ld im p lem e n t an a ltern a te p ro c e d u re sh o u ld itp rov e m o re b en ef

ici al a n d ap p rop ri ate. B u t i n the m ea n ti m e, w e w il l con ti n u e to a d h ere t o t he or i gi nal r at i onal e and pr ocedur al gui del i nes s et out i n A nd ers.In re Schulman Pag e 13

See, e .g ., Meza v

. State, 206 S.W .3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that 32 “the c ourts of appe als have jurisdiction and authority to gr ant a motion to withdraw that acc ompanies an An de rs brief wheneve r, as he re, the y find that appe llate counse l has exercised pr of e ssi on a l di lig e nc e in a ssa yingthere c or d f

or e rr or , a nd the y a gre e that th e a

pp e a l is frivo lou s. In such circ umstances the c ourt of appe als should gr ant the motion to withdraw. I f, on the other hand, they

believe e ither that appe llate counse l has not adequately discharg ed his constitutional duty to r e vie w the re c or d f

or any argua ble e rr or , o r t

hat th e a pp e a l is no t who lly

frivo lou s, no tw ith sta

nd inga pp e llate c ouns e l’ s e ff

or ts, the y mus t then a

bate the a pp e a l and re tur n th e c a us e to t he tr ia l c ourt

fo r t he a pp ointme nt o f n e w a

pp e llate c ouns e l[.]” ); Sta

ffo rd v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“Af ter a n attorney files a proper An de rs brief ( which should be fi le d w itha

re qu e st f or wi thd ra wa l f ro m th e c a se ) a

nd the a pp e lla nt i s a ff or de d a n o pp or tun ity to respond, the Court of

Appea ls–not the attorney –must conduct its own investigation of the rec ord to d isc ov e r i f t

he reareargua

blegro un ds . I f gro un ds arede e me d a rgua ble , th e Court

of Ap pe a ls then must abate the appea l and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t with orders to appoint other counsel to pre sent those and a ny other grounds that might support the a ppeal. As w e re ad An de rs, counsel filinga frivolous brief must be allowed to withdra w from the c ase a

nd conseque ntly

cannot be order ed to argue grounds that she ha d previously deter mined to be wi tho ut m e ri t.” ) ( fo otn oteomi tte d) ; In re J .L.M , ___ S.W .3d __, No. 12-07-00013- CV, 2008 Te x. Ap p. L EX I S 65 8 * 3 ( Te x. Ap p. – T yle r, Janu ary 31 , 2 00 8, no pe t. h .) (n oti ngthat a pp e llate counsel filed An de rs brief a nd “moved f

or leave to withdraw . We car ried the motion with our consideration of the merits. Havingdone so and f inding no r ever sible err or, Appe llant’s c o un s e l ’ s m o t i o nf

o r l e av e t o w i th dr awi s h e r e b y granted and the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt i s affirmed .” ); Mo ra le

s v . S tate , N o . 1 1
- 0 6
- 0 0 2 4 1
- CR , 2 0 0 7 T e x. Ap p . L E X I S 5 0 1 0 * 2 ( T e x. Ap p. – E a stl and , Jun e 28 , 2 00 7, no pe t. h .) (n ot d e signate d f or pu bli c atio n) (“ Ap pe lla

nt’ s c ourt appointed counse l has filed a motion to withdraw. Themotion is supported by a brie f in which counsel prof

essionally and consc ientiously

examines the rec ord and a pplicable law

and states that he has c oncluded that the a ppeal is frivolous. . . . Couns el has provide d appellant with a c opy of the brief and advise d appellant of

his right to re view the r ecord and file a response to counsel’s brief. Aresponse has not bee n filed. Court-appointed c ounsel has complied with the require ments of An de rs ”). R el at or and s om e cour t s of appe al s m ays har e i n s om e conf u sion conce r ni ng t he di s t i nct i on bet w een t he f i l i ng of a m o ti o n to w i t hdr aw and t he gr ant i ng of t hat m ot i on. U nder t he A nd ers p ro c e d u re , the m o tio n to w ith d ra w w ill n o t b e g ra n ted u n til th e a p p e llate

co u rt deci des w het her t he appe al i s , i n fac t , w hol l yfr i vol ous , or w het her t her e ar e any
ar guabl e cl ai m s of m er i t
. I n ei t her event , t he m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw w i l l t hen be gr ant ed and 32 ei t her t he appe al w i l l be di s m i s s ed or t h e ca se aba t ed t o t he t r i al cour t for appoi nt m ent ofIn re Schulman Pag e 14

The duty to send the client a

copy of the c ourt of appe als’s dec ision is an informational 33 one, not a r epre sentational one. It is mi nisterial in nature , does not involve leg al advice , and exis ts after

the cour t of appe als has grante d counsel’s motion to withdraw. This informational duty c ou ld h ave be e n p la c e d u po n th e a pp e llate c ourt s th e mse lve s, but be c a us e c ouns e l is us ua lly better infor

med about his forme r client’s where abouts, it has been pla ced on his shoulder s. I f, howeve r, the c lient has not kept counsel infor med of his cur

rent a ddress, then c ounsel ca nnot be held re sponsible for his client’s fa ilure to timely rec eive a copy of the a ppellate opinion or notice of his right to tim ely

file a pro s ePDR. As explained in note 22, su pra , the trial cour

t’s cer tification of the right to appe al now 34 includes an a dvisory

conce rningthe appe llant’s right to file a pro s ePDR. This i s not an instance in which the trial judg e is g iving leg al advice to the defe ndant, he is mere ly informingthat person of his statutory

right to appeal. The same is true when appe llate counse l sends his now-forme r client a c opy

of the c ourt of appe als’s opinion and the re quired infor mation conce rningthe appellant’ s statutory

right to file a pro s ePDR. Of course , as we stated in Ex parte Owe ns , 206 S.W .3d 670, 674 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), “[t] here is no particular rea son that counsel filing an An de rs brief c annot aler t his client to the client’s right to file a petition for discr etionary revie w at the same time that he informs his client of his rights to file a pro s ea p p e ll ate b r ie f

[. ]” New T EX R. A PP . P. 48.4, entitled Opinion Sent to Criminal Defendant , s tate s, 35 In c ri min a l c a se s, theatto rn e y repr e se nti ngthe de fe nd ant o n a pp e a l sh a ll, wi thi n five da y s after the opinion is handed down, send his c lient a copy of the opinion and judgment, alongwith notification of the def endant’ s right to file a pro s e petition for discre tionary

revie w under

Rule 68. This notification shall be sent c e rt if ie d ma il, re tur

n r e c e ipt re qu e ste d, to t

he de fe nd ant at hi s la st k

no wn a dd re ss. The attorney

shall also send the c ourt of appe als a letter cer tifying his c ompliance wi thth i s ru l e an d

at t ac h i n g a c o p y

o f th e r eturnre ce i p twi th i nth e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a motion for rehe aring . The c ourt of appe als shall file this letter in its recor d of the a pp e a l. Id. This rule applies whe n appellatecounsel files a n An de rs brie f a s w e ll a s whe n h e fi le s a me ri ts b ri e f. Ag a in, thi s d uty is i nf or matio na l, n ot r e pr e se ntatio na l. n e w c o u n se l. C o u n se l’s d u ties to h is c li e n t ar e n o t ex tin g u ish e d u n til th a t ti m e . U n til h is A nd ers m o tio n to w ith d ra w is g ra n ted , co u n se l re p re se n ts h is c lien t, m u st s e n d h is c lien t a copyof t he A nd ers br i ef, m us t i nfor m hi m of hi s r i ght t o fi l e a pro se r es pons e, m us t r es pond t o h i s cli ent’ s q uest i on s, m ust send him a cop y of t he d eci si on by t he co urt of ap peals , m ust 33

ens ur e t hat hi s cl i ent has been i nfor m ed of hi s r i ght t o fi l e a pro se PD R , and s o for t h. B ut 34 35In re Schulman Pag e 15

t he cour t of appea l s cannot pr ocee d i n an or der l y w ayi n t he A nd ers si t uati on un t i l and un l ess
c o u n s e l h a s f

ile d a m o tio n to w ith d ra w . B eca us e t he Sevent h C o u rt o f A ppeal s w as cor r ecti n i t s O r der t hat M r . Schul m an
m us t fi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw befor e t hat cour t can pr ocee d fur t her i n t hi s appea l , w e deny

m andamus r el i ef.

D el i ver ed: A pr i l 30, 2008 P ub l i sh