Christopher Robert Crittell v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00741-CR

Christopher Robert CRITTELL, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 24-8969

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 4, 2026 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Appellant Christopher Robert Crittell was convicted by a jury on one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of more than four grams and less than two-hundred grams, a second degree felony enhanced by four prior felony convictions, and the trial court assessed punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d). The trial court signed a judgment of conviction and sentence in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Appellant now appeals.

04-24-00741-CR

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and requested permission to withdraw. Counsel concludes that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). This court notified appellant of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Appellant filed a letter, which we construe as a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 1 See Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86 (explaining that after the procedural requirements of Anders are satisfied and the court has independently reviewed the record, the court will grant the motion to withdraw and either dispose of the appeal if found frivolous or abate and remand the appeal if found non-frivolous); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1 (explaining that if after independent review, the court finds arguable legal points, the appeal will be abated for the trial court to appoint new counsel if individual is indigent).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

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 must 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 that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and any such petition must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.