James Meyer v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00106-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00106-CR

James MEYER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR8062 Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2026

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Appellant James Meyer was charged with, and subsequently convicted of, possessing

fentanyl in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. Although Meyer was

initially placed on probation, it was later revoked, and he was sentenced to two years’

imprisonment. Meyer’s counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw from representation. 04-25-00106-CR

BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2023, the State charged Meyer with possession of a controlled substance,

namely fentanyl, in an amount between 4 and 200 grams. The indictment also included a repeat

offender- enhancement allegation. On September 3, 2024, Meyer and the State entered into a plea

agreement under which the State waived the enhancement allegation and recommended a sentence

of eight years’ confinement, suspended and probated for eight years.

During the term of community supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging that

Meyer violated the conditions of his probation by committing new offenses—including smuggling

of persons and possession of a controlled substance—and by leaving Bexar County without

permission. On February 13, 2025, Meyer pled true to the allegation that he left Bexar County

without authorization. The trial court found the allegation true, reformed the underlying judgment,

and sentenced Meyer to two years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–

Institutional Division. Meyer timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Counsel’s Anders brief asserts that, after reviewing the record, he found no issues, which

if brought in good faith, would result in reversible error on appeal. The brief does not present any

substantive arguments; instead, counsel concludes that “there are no issues which can be brought

in good faith which could result in reversible error.” Counsel provided Meyer with a copy of the

brief and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. This court notified

Meyer of the deadline to file his pro se brief. Meyer did not file a pro se brief.

Although counsel’s filing satisfies the procedural requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), we are required to conduct an independent review of the entire record to

determine whether any arguable grounds for appeal exist. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 765–

-2- 04-25-00106-CR

66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). After independently reviewing the record, we conclude that no

arguable grounds for appeal exist and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Nichols v. State, 954

S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam) (explaining that when an

appellate court determines there are no arguable grounds, it should affirm the trial court’s

judgment); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.)

(same). Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

Velia J. Meza, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-