Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-21-2019
Case Style:
Kelly Cobb v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 10-18-00364-CR
Judge: REX D. DAVIS
Court: TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael Brian Evans
Defendant's Attorney: Kelly Cobb
Stan Schwieger
Description:
MoreLaw Virtual Receptionists
Nosotros hablamos español
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d
493 (1967), Cobb’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to
withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of
error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
Cobb v. State Page 2
of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’
points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts
and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State,
112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Cobb’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is
no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)
served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Cobb; and (3) informed
Cobb of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409
n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Cobb has not filed a pro se
response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
1 Counsel has informed this Court that he has provided the record to Cobb. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Cobb v. State Page 3
75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 350, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and
counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs
and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. The
judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
In accordance with Anders, Cobb’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel for Cobb. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)).
Outcome: We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of
this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Cobb and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.2
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
