Dennis Stack v. the State of Texas

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00389-CR ___________________________ DENNIS STACK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F24-920-462

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Dennis Stack was indicted for the third-degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated, third or more. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). He pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. Following a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Stack to eight years’ incarceration. Stack timely appealed.

After determining that Stack’s appeal was frivolous, Stack’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Stack with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw; he informed Stack of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court declare his appeal frivolous; and he sent Stack a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.

See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Stack had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do so. In lieu of a brief, the State filed a letter waiving its right to respond to the Anders brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827– (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: July 24, 2025