Background
Robbie Mabra pled guilty to forgery, a state jail-felony offense, and pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years. The State subsequently alleged that Mabra violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to report and failing to provide urine samples on numerous occasions. After an evidentiary hearing at which Mabra pled true to the allegations, the trial court found the allegations true, revoked Mabra’s deferred adjudication community supervision, and sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment.
Mabra appealed. His appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief set out the procedural history of the case and summarized the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Appellate counsel also filed a motion with the Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in the appeal.
This appeal was transferred to the Sixth Court of Appeals from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a Texas Supreme Court docket equalization order. Accordingly, the Court applied the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding this case.
The Court’s Holding
The Court determined that appellate counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced met the requirements of Anders v. California. On August 17, 2026, appellate counsel mailed to Mabra copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. Mabra was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated October 1, the Court informed Mabra that the case would be set for submission on October 22. The Court received neither a pro se response from Mabra nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
The Court independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like appellate counsel, determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. The Court concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous. In the Anders context, once the Court determines that the appeal is without merit, it must affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Because the Court agreed that the case presents no reversible error, it also, in accordance with Anders, granted appellate counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the 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 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, must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- When appellate counsel files an Anders brief demonstrating no arguable grounds for appeal and the court independently confirms the appeal is wholly frivolous, the court must affirm the trial court’s judgment.
- Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw will be granted when the court agrees the case presents no reversible error, and no substitute counsel will be appointed.
- A defendant whose deferred adjudication community supervision is revoked after pleading true to violations may face imprisonment for the underlying offense.
- Appellants seeking further review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after an Anders affirmance must file a petition for discretionary review within thirty days, either through retained counsel or pro se.
Why It Matters
This memorandum opinion illustrates the application of the Anders procedure in Texas criminal appeals when appellate counsel determines that no meritorious issues exist for appeal. The decision demonstrates the court’s independent obligation to review the record before concluding that an appeal is frivolous and affirming the trial court’s judgment.
The opinion also clarifies the procedural path for appellants who wish to seek further review after an Anders affirmance, including the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the requirement that such review be pursued either through retained counsel or on a pro se basis.