Brent Michael Derrick v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00706-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued September 18, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00706-CR ——————————— BRENT MICHAEL DERRICK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 506th District Court Waller County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 21-12-17940

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Brent Michael Derrick was convicted of possession with intent to

deliver a controlled substance—namely, methamphetamine in an amount of one

gram or more but less than four grams—and sentenced to six years’ confinement. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112(a), (c). Appellant timely filed a notice

of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that,

therefore, the appeal is without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the

record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,

812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the

record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to

withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant, informed appellant of his right to file a

response, and provided appellant with a copy of the appellate record.1 In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly v. State, 436

S.W.3d 313, 320–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant did not file a pro se

response to the Anders brief.

1 Additionally, when counsel filed the Anders brief, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant of his right to file a pro se response and to receive a copy of the appellate record. 2 We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim

raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable

grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a

holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for

discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178

S.W.3d at 827 n.6.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Paul Morrison must

immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

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