Kade Brian Landers v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 7, 2023
• Docket: 05-22-00309-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirm and Opinion Filed March 7, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00309-CR

KADE BRIAN LANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 072955

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Kade Brian Landers appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child. See

TEX. PENAL CODE 22.011(a)(2)(A). Landers pleaded guilty, and the trial court

assessed a twenty-year sentence.

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v.

California in which he stated that after thorough review, he has found no grounds

for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Landers of his motion

to withdraw, (2) provided him a copy of the motion and the brief, (3) informed him

of his right to file a pro se response, (4) informed him of his right to seek

discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous, and (5) took

concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Landers the opportunity to

file a response, but he did not do so.

After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an

appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. See

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal.

–2– We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.

/Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

220309F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

KADE BRIAN LANDERS, On Appeal from the 59th Judicial Appellant District Court, Grayson County, Texas No. 05-22-00309-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 072955. Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 7th day of March, 2023.

–4–