Isaac Avery Burford v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 17, 2025

In The Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________ No. 11-24-00164-CR ___________ ISAAC AVERY BURFORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. B-22-0324-CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2019). On January 30, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six years for the lesser-included offense of robbery. See id. § 29.02(b).

The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt, then amended it, alleging that Appellant committed four violations of his community supervision conditions. According to Appellant’s judgment of conviction, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s amended motion on May 28, 2024. Upon Appellant’s plea of “true” to two allegations, the trial court found him guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief in which he states that he is satisfied with his sentence and does not want to pursue this appeal.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.1

Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE

July 17, 2025 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.