Christopher Dalton Lee Carder v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-000187-CR

CHRISTOPHER DALTON LEE CARDER, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas1

Trial Court No. CR14553, Honorable Bryan Bufkin, Presiding

August 19, 2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant, Christopher Dalton Lee Carder, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of the offense of possession of child pornography.2 His court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v.

1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court

by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. Where there is a conflict with the precedent of this Court, this appeal has been decided in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022).

2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26.

California,3 concluding that no plausible grounds for appeal exist. After conducting an independent review of the record, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

This appeal arises from a revocation of probation. A Hood County grand jury previously indicted Appellant for the offense of possession of child pornography on August 7, 2019. In October 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense, he signed a guilty plea memorandum, which included the legally required admonishments. Upon taking his plea, the trial court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment, which would be probated for ten years, and a fine of $2,500.

In November 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, followed by an amended motion to revoke probation on December 31, 2025. The amended motion alleged three violations of the conditions of probation: (1) possessing sexually explicit materials to wit: 20 to 30 nude photos that included exposed butt, 5 photos of a vagina and 4 photos of breasts and nipples; (2) using an electronic device (Appellant’s PS5) to view photos of naked female(s) that included exposed butt(s) and vagina(s) and/or to send around 5 photos of his erect penis; and (3) using an electronic device (Appellant’s PS5) to view and send nude photos. Appellant pleaded true to all three alleged violations.

During the hearing conducted on February 19, 2026, the court heard and evaluated the evidence presented by both sides before ultimately revoking Appellant’s probation

3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). When appointed appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id.

3

and sentencing Appellant to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a Motion for New Trial/Motion in Arrest of Judgment and Notice of Appeal on March 3, 2026. Appellant’s trial counsel then filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted after a hearing on March 9, 2026. The trial court declined to enter an order regarding the pending motion for new trial while appointment of Appellant’s new counsel was pending. The motion was overruled by operation of law.

ANDERS FRAMEWORK

An Anders brief must present a professional evaluation of the record and explain why the appeal presents no arguable grounds for reversal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel need not identify specific arguable points where none exist, but the brief must include record references and pertinent legal authorities. Id.; Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.). Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). This Court, in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

Here, Appellate counsel’s brief meets the necessary requirements. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination

4

of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no grounds that could be argued non- frivolously on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no grounds for appeal that are not frivolous. In his opinion, the record reflects no potentially plausible basis to support an appeal. Counsel has also demonstrated he has complied with the requirements by (1) providing copies of the brief and the appellate record to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desires to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

By letter on June 29, 2026, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s motion, with the deadline for response being July 29, 2026. To date, Appellant has neither filed a response nor otherwise contacted the Court. The State has not favored us with a brief.

ANALYSIS

By his Anders brief, counsel evaluated the sufficiency of the indictment, any pre-

and post-trial rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, all phases of the proceedings, the reasonableness of the sentence, and the record. He candidly discussed potential issues and conceded no errors occurred during trial which would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Thus, he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal, and the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. Our independent review confirms appellate counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly

5

frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Proof of a single violation of the conditions of community supervision supports an adjudication of guilt. Velasco v. State, No. 02-24-00219-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6206, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 14, 2025, no pet. h.) (citing Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). Appellant’s pleas of true to all three allegations, standing alone, support the trial court’s decision to adjudicate. So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we (1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s convictions, (2) affirm the trial court’s judgments, and (3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Laura A. W. Pratt

Justice

Do not publish.

4 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall (1) send Appellant a copy

of the opinion and judgment and (2) inform Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.