Mark Daniel Mallow v. the State of Texas

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,

3

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