In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00013-CR

WESLEY KENDARROW ADDISON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1625277D

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION A Tarrant County1 jury convicted Wesley Kendarrow Addison of aggravated robbery, found the State’s enhancement allegations “true,” and assessed his sentence at forty years’ imprisonment. Addison appeals his judgment of conviction.

Addison’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrated why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Addison’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal and provided Addison with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel also informed Addison of his right to review the record and file a pro se response and provided Addison with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. After Addison filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, his counsel also provided him with a copy of the appellate record and made the digitally recorded exhibits from the record available for Addison’s

Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. review. Addison filed a pro se brief. While his brief complains of several matters, including his counsel, it does not raise a genuinely arguable issue.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: August 8, 2023 Date Decided: August 15, 2023 Do Not Publish

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.