Cedric Bernard James v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: July 9, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00083-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00083-CR

Cedric Bernard James, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 12th District Court of Walker County, Texas Judge David W. Moorman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 29578

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Cedric Bernard James violated six terms and

conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision for the felony

offense of injury to an elderly person. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04. As a

result, the trial court found James guilty and assessed his punishment at ten

years confinement. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.34. This appeal ensued. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment. James’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the

appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief

evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with

the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed

the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346,

349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–

11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit”

when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S.

429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a

review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be

wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

James v. State Page 2 Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of James is granted.

MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25

James v. State Page 3