Kenneth Maurice McDonald v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 13, 2025
Docket10-25-00157-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Kenneth Maurice McDonald v. the State of Texas (Kenneth Maurice McDonald v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kenneth Maurice McDonald v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00157-CR

Kenneth Maurice McDonald, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas Judge Trent D. Farrell, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 24-28654

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kenneth Maurice McDonald pled guilty to and was convicted of burglary

of a building. He was placed on community supervision for five years. The

trial court revoked McDonald’s supervision after McDonald pled true to each

alleged community supervision violation and sentenced McDonald to 20

months in State Jail. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. McDonald’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the

appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's

brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance

with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has

performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at

744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all

the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d

300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any

basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108

S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this

appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court's judgment.

McDonald v. State Page 2 Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of McDonald is

granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: November 13, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish CR25

McDonald v. State Page 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kenneth Maurice McDonald v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-maurice-mcdonald-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.