Terrence Terrell Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00385-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00385-CR

Terrence Terrell SMITH, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025CR001264 Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2026

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Following a bench trial, appellant Terrence Terrell Smith was found guilty of third-degree

injury to an elderly individual (bodily injury), and he was sentenced to six years with the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.04(f). Smith timely appealed.

Smith’s court-appointed appellate counsel 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 04-25-00385-CR

this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744–45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel’s brief satisfies the requirements of Anders. See 386 U.S. at 744–45;

High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13. Smith was provided with a copy of the Anders brief and was

informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Smith obtained a copy of the appellate record and filed a pro

se brief.

We have thoroughly reviewed counsel’s Anders brief, Smith’s pro se brief, and the

appellate record. We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. We affirm

the trial court’s judgment, and we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols v.

State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 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.). 1

Lori Massey Brissette, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant wishes to seek further review of this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must file a petition for discretionary review either through a retained attorney or by representing himself. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either (1) this opinion or (2) the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Id. R. 68.4.

-2-