Court Opinion

ID: 9352866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 13:07:59.979243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:28.741736
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                   San Antonio, Texas
                                           January 9, 2023

                                       No. 04-22-00671-CR

                                   Taylor Eugene KREGEAR,
                                            Appellant

                                                 v.

                                      The STATE of Texas,
                                            Appellee

                 From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
                                 Trial Court No. 14-2572-CR-C
                          Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

                                           ORDER
        Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to
raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,
informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of
his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous,
and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the
procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State,
924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order,
appellant has not filed the record-request motion provided to him by his counsel.

        If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by February 8, 2023.
If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty
days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

       We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in
abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988)
(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently
reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);
Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

Entered on this 9th day of January 2023.
                                                PER CURIAM

Attested to: ________________________________
               MICHAEL A. CRUZ,
               Clerk of Court