Michael Marvin Tucker v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00155-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG


MICHAEL MARVIN TUCKER,                                                    Appellant,

                                              v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                        Appellee.


             ON APPEAL FROM THE 343RD DISTRICT COURT
                  OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS


                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
            Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

      Appellant Michael Marvin Tucker pleaded guilty to deadly conduct, a third-degree

felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.05(b), (e). The trial court deferred adjudication and

placed appellant on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to

adjudicate guilt, and appellant pleaded true to the State’s allegations. The trial court
adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s court-

appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds

for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

                                   I.     ANDERS BRIEF

       Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that her review of the record

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements 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) (orig. proceeding) (“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–Edinburg 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) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court

in writing that she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

appellant of his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those

                                             2
responses, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous;

and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record

that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within

ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.

       Appellant filed a pro se response. When appellate counsel files an Anders brief

and the appellant independently files a pro se response, the court of appeals has two

choices:

       It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion
       explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or,
       it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the
       cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the
       issues.

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (internal citations

omitted). We are “not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief

or a pro se response.” Id. at 827. Rather, we must merely determine if there are any

arguable grounds for appeal. Id. If we determine there are such arguable grounds, we

must remand for appointment of new counsel. Id. Reviewing the merits raised in a pro se

response would deprive an appellant of the meaningful assistance of counsel. Id.

                               II.     INDEPENDENT REVIEW

       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.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the

                                             3
issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,

the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

                                     III.     MOTION TO WITHDRAW

        In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                            IV.     CONCLUSION

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                                      JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                                      Chief Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of April, 2026.




         1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case

by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3.
Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
                                                       4