Court Opinion

ID: 9379243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 06:08:36.722139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.390615
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed March 7, 2023

                                   S In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-22-00309-CR

                     KADE BRIAN LANDERS, Appellant
                                  V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
                          Grayson County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 072955

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Kade Brian Landers appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child. See

TEX. PENAL CODE 22.011(a)(2)(A). Landers pleaded guilty, and the trial court

assessed a twenty-year sentence.

      Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v.

California in which he stated that after thorough review, he has found no grounds

for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Landers of his motion

to withdraw, (2) provided him a copy of the motion and the brief, (3) informed him

of his right to file a pro se response, (4) informed him of his right to seek

discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous, and (5) took

concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Landers the opportunity to

file a response, but he did not do so.

      After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an

appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. See

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

      After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal.

                                         –2–
      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.

                                        /Emily Miskel/
                                        EMILY MISKEL
Do Not Publish                          JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

220309F.U05

                                     –3–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KADE BRIAN LANDERS,                          On Appeal from the 59th Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Grayson County,
                                             Texas
No. 05-22-00309-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. 072955.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III
                                             participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 7th day of March, 2023.

                                       –4–