Court Opinion

ID: 9960458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 14:12:22.966375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:30.019751
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                        No. 04-23-00013-CR

                                     Jeffrey Wayne NEWMAN,
                                              Appellant

                                                v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                    From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas
                                     Trial Court No. 658978
                          Honorable Rosie S. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:      Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:         Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                 Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                 Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2024

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

           In 2021, Appellant Jeffrey Wayne Newman was charged with assault causing bodily

injury—married. A jury found him guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at one year in jail,

ordered $365 in court costs, but granted Newman’s application for probation. Newman appealed

his conviction. Court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, and the State filed a brief waiver.

Newman did not file a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.
                                                                                       04-23-00013-CR

                         COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL’S ANDERS BRIEF

       Newman’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel

also filed a motion to withdraw. The brief recited the relevant facts with citations to the record. It

presented a thorough review of the appellate record and a careful analysis of potential appellate

issues. Counsel concluded “that this appeal is without any reasonably arguable merit.” See

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

       Appellate counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see

also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State,

436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel provided Newman with a copy of the brief

and counsel’s motion to withdraw, and he informed Newman of his right to review the record and

file a pro se brief. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; see also Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176,

177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel also provided Newman with a draft pro

se motion to request a free copy of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–

20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

                                           CONCLUSION

       Having reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we conclude that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal and the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we grant

appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 85–86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at

177 n.1.

                                        FURTHER REVIEW

       No substitute counsel will be appointed. Through a retained attorney or by representing

himself, Newman may ask the Court of Criminal Appeals to review his case by filing a petition

                                                 -2-
                                                                                       04-23-00013-CR

for discretionary review. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals

within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing

or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, 68.3(a).

The petition must also comply with Rule 68.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                                   Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Do not publish

                                                 -3-