Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 4, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00523-CR JERRY WAYNE FORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-76542 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove We withdrew our prior opinion in this case by order dated December 12, 2023.

This is now the opinion of the Court. Jerry Wayne Ford was indicted for murder.

The jury found appellant guilty, and the court assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel.

Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response.1 The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an independent examination of the record, “[the appellate court] may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[.] Or, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. at 826–27 (internal citations omitted). The appellate court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including counsel’s Anders brief2 and the issues raised in appellant’s pro se response. We

Appellant’s response does not address counsel’s Anders brief or motion to withdraw but instead argues in four issues that trial counsel was ineffective.

Although in her brief, counsel did not discuss the issue of jury selection, the one sustained State’s objection, or appellant’s boilerplate motion for new trial which was overruled by operation of law, our independent review of those issues shows no arguable grounds for review. We note the better practice would be for counsel to address these issues in the Anders brief. Nevertheless, after conducting a review of the entire record, we agree with counsel that there are no arguable issues to raise on appeal, and thus, any appeal would be frivolous. Although the brief fails to discuss certain areas recommended by this Court to comply with uniform Anders’ requirements, we are convinced counsel thoroughly and conscientiously reviewed the record for potential issues and provided a roadmap for this Court’s review of the record to assure counsel made the legally correct determination that the appeal is frivolous. See In re Schulman, 252 –2– conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (reviewing court, and not counsel, determines—after full examination of proceedings—whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments as modified.

/Maricela Breedlove/ 220523f.u05 MARICELA BREEDLOVE Do Not Publish JUSTICE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Under these circumstances, we conclude counsel substantially complied with her obligations under Anders. –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JERRY WAYNE FORD, Appellant On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00523-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F20-76542.

Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 4th day of January, 2024.

–4–