James Holdane Syme A/K/A James Holdane Syme, III v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion filed July 23, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-25-00209-CR

__________

JAMES HOLDANE SYME A/K/A JAMES HOLDANE SYME, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14958-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, James Holdane Syme a/k/a James Holdane Syme, III, was charged with driving while intoxicated, a third-degree felony enhanced by two prior felony convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09 (West Supp. 2025). The State abandoned one enhancement paragraph, and Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” and “true” to the remaining enhancement paragraph. After the completion

2

of a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at ten years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel has professionally and conscientiously examined the record and applicable law, and she has concluded that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that the appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We observe that prior to entering an open plea, Appellant received written and oral admonishments pursuant to Article 26.13. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13 (West Supp. 2025). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court 1

of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

3

subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.” (quoting Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27)).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

July 23, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.