Mark Daniel Mallow v. the State of Texas
This text of Mark Daniel Mallow v. the State of Texas (Mark Daniel Mallow 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.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00193-CR No. 04-24-00194-CR
Mark Daniel MALLOW, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2023CR6598, 2023CR6599 Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2025
AFFIRMED
Following the jury trial of two consolidated cases, appellant Mark Daniel Mallow was
convicted on twenty counts of possession of child pornography in one case and one count of
possession with the intent to promote child pornography in the second case. In accordance with
the jury’s punishment recommendation and after considering the State’s motions to cumulate
Mallow’s sentences on all twenty-one counts, the trial court sentenced Mallow to six years in 04-24-00193-CR, 04-24-00194-CR
prison for each of the twenty counts of possession of child pornography and eleven years in prison
for the one count of possession with the intent to promote child pornography. The trial court
cumulated all twenty-one sentences. Mallow appeals.
Mallow’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal
authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes
that these appeals are frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744–45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a
professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744–45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel certified that he served copies of the brief and
motion to withdraw on Mallow, informed Mallow of his right to review the record and file a pro
se brief, and explained to Mallow the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently
set a deadline for Mallow to file a pro se brief. Mallow then requested a copy of the record, which
this court provided to him. Subsequently, Mallow filed a pro se brief. The State did not file a brief
in response.
We have reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, and Mallow’s pro se brief. We
conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, and these appeals are wholly frivolous and
without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court
of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should
only determine if the appeal is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of
conviction and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,
-2- 04-24-00193-CR, 04-24-00194-CR
85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mallow wish to seek further review by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or from “the day the
last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the
court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mark Daniel Mallow v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-daniel-mallow-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.