OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Osborne, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Osborne Appellant Juan Manuel Arevalos was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age[1] and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. After appellant filed a notice of appeal and a pauper’s oath, the trial court appointed appellate counsel. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which he concluded this appeal is wholly frivolous, without merit, and that there are no arguable grounds to advance. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W. 2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant’s appointed counsel also filed a separate motion to withdraw stating he (1) informed appellant of the motion to withdraw and the filing of the Anders brief, (2) provided appellant with the “requisite copies required by Kelly[2] while notifying him of his various pro se rights,” and (3) supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record as well as the mailing address for this Court.[3] In Anders, the United States Supreme Court outlined a procedure for ensuring that an indigent defendant’s right to counsel on appeal is honored when his appointed attorney concludes that the appeal is without merit. 386 U.S. at 744. If the appointed attorney finds, after a conscientious examination of the record, that the case is “wholly frivolous,” he should so advise the appellate court, request permission to withdraw, and file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 437–39 (1988). The purpose of the brief filed in support of counsel’s motion to withdraw, the “Anders brief,” is to satisfy the appellate court that the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw is based upon a conscientious and thorough review of the law and facts. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408). The Anders brief should reflect that the appointed attorney has adequately researched the case and used due diligence investigating potential error before requesting to withdraw from further representation. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407. Texas courts further require an Anders brief to refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, with citations to the record and legal authority. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court of Criminal Appeals has specifically held that an Anders brief has certain requirements: [I]n contested cases where “frivolous appeal” briefs are filed by court- appointed counsel . . . [courts] . . . should not . . . accept such briefs unless they discuss the evidence adduced at the trial, point out where pertinent testimony may be found in the record, refer to pages in the record where objections were made, the nature of the objection, the trial court’s ruling, and discuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the ruling of the court. High, 573 S.W.2d at 813 (emphasis added). If done correctly, an Anders brief can be more difficult and time-consuming to prepare than an ordinary appellate brief. Banks v. State, 341 S.W.3d 428, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, order); Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order.); see also United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998). When an appellate court receives an Anders brief from an appellant’s court- appointed attorney asserting that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree that the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), and affirm the trial court’s judgment. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2020, no pet.). However, if we conclude either that appellate counsel has not adequately discharged the constitutional duty to review the record for any arguable error, or that the appeal is not wholly frivolous, we abate the appeal and return the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel. Meza, 206 S.W.3d at 689; Crowe, 595 S.W.3d at 320. Of course, in order to evaluate which option to exercise, this Court must have –4–
