Clint Steven Janecka v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

had a prior felony conviction for an offense involving a deadly weapon finding. Janecka pleaded true, which elevated the offense to a third-degree felony.2 The jury assessed a punishment of six years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine.3 Janecka appealed.

Janecka’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Further, Janecka’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Janecka and informed him of his right to

2 See id. § 12.35(c)(2)(B).

3 See id. § 12.34.

3

access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.4 Janecka did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that 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); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Gregory Sherwood must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

4 Subsequently, this Court also notified Janecka at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided him with a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014).

5 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Janecka of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6.

4

this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-25-00754-CR ——————————— CLINT STEVEN JANECKA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 25th District Court Colorado County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24-162 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Clint Steven Janecka of breach of computer security with damages of between $2500 and $30,000.1 The indictment also alleged that Janecka 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 33.02(b-1), (b-2)(4).