Whencise Surlin v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 01-24-00293-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 12, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00293-CR ——————————— WHENCISE SURLIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1779889

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Whencise Surlin of the third-degree felony offense

of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle.1 Pursuant to an agreement

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). between Surlin and the State, the trial court assessed Surlin’s punishment at ten

years’ confinement, suspended the sentence, and placed Surlin on community

supervision for three years. Surlin timely filed a notice of appeal.

Surlin’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and to legal

authority. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). Counsel states that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to

advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no

pet.).

Surlin’s counsel has certified that she mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw

and the Anders brief to Surlin. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). Counsel also certified that she informed Surlin of her right to file a pro

se response and to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel certified that she provided Surlin with a form

motion for pro se access to the record. See id. at 319–20. Surlin has not requested

access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.

2 We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (stating that

appellate court, not counsel, determines “after a full examination of all the

proceedings” whether “the case is wholly frivolous”); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d

763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (stating that reviewing court has duty to determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (stating

that we make this determination by reviewing “entire record”). An appellant may

challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition

for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Bledsoe v. State,

178 S.W.3d 824, 827 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.2 Attorney Daucie Schindler must immediately send Surlin the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Gunn, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Surlin of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam). 3