Dennis Stack v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 02-24-00389-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00389-CR ___________________________

DENNIS STACK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F24-920-462

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Dennis Stack was indicted for the third-degree felony offense of

driving while intoxicated, third or more. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). He

pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. Following a hearing on

punishment, the trial court sentenced Stack to eight years’ incarceration. Stack timely

appealed.

After determining that Stack’s appeal was frivolous, Stack’s court-appointed

appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that

motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance

with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Stack with copies of the brief and the motion to

withdraw; he informed Stack of his right to file a pro se response, to review the

record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal

frivolous; and he sent Stack a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.

See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Stack had the opportunity to file a

pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do so. In lieu of a brief, the State filed

a letter waiving its right to respond to the Anders brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record

2 that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: July 24, 2025