Court Opinion

ID: 9838046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-04 09:09:13.240533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.825508
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-21-00134-CR
     ___________________________

JOHN WESLEY BREEDLOVE II, Appellant

                     V.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 355th District Court
          Hood County, Texas
        Trial Court No. CR14536

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant John Wesley Breedlove II appeals his conviction and forty-eight-year

sentence for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 21.02. Breedlove’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      In her motion to withdraw and supporting brief, counsel has determined, after

examining the appellate record, that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the Anders requirements, presenting a professional evaluation of the

entire record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.             Id.,

87 S. Ct. at 1400. Although provided the opportunity to seek a copy of the appellate

record and to file a pro se response, Breedlove has not done so. Likewise, the State

did not respond to the Anders brief.

      After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.1 See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

      1
        In orders dated July 28, 2022, and May 22, 2023, we expressed concerns
regarding a potential ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. We have determined
that the issue cannot be successfully argued in this case on direct appeal. See Gomez v.
State, 552 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.) (citing Menefield v.
State, 363 S.W.3d 591, 592–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). But cf. Nava v. State,
415 S.W.3d 289, 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (noting that if trial counsel did not have
opportunity to explain action or inaction, we should not find deficient performance
unless the conduct was “so outrageous that no competent attorney would have engaged in

                                            2
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (noting reviewing court’s duty to make independent

determination after reviewing record); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83,

109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). Our independent review of the record reveals no arguable

grounds for appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We

therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Dana Womack

                                                     Dana Womack
                                                     Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 31, 2023

it.” (emphasis added)). “[T]he better procedural mechanism for pursuing a claim of
ineffective assistance is almost always through writ of habeas corpus proceedings.”
Tellez v. State, No. 04-18-00426-CR, 2019 WL 2271956, at *1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio May 29, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing
Freeman v. State, 125 S.W.3d 505, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Price, J., dissenting)).

                                          3