Description: Willingham’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief with this court representing
that he conducted a professional evaluation of the record and determined there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on Willingham’s behalf. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel explains why he concluded the
appeal is without merit. Counsel states he reviewed the indictment and evidence adduced at trial,
as well as the record of the revocation hearing. The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it
presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. Id. at 744–
45; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel provided Willingham with copies of counsel’s Anders brief and motion to
withdraw and informed Willingham of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel advised
Willingham to file a motion in this court if he wished to review the appellate record and enclosed
a form motion for that purpose. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1996, no pet.). Thereafter, we set deadlines for Willingham to file any motion for the
record and any pro se brief. Willingham neither requested the record nor filed a pro se brief.
Outcome: After reviewing the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted.