In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00083-CR
JOHN MICHAEL MONACO, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 86th District Court
Kaufman County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 17-50982-86-F, Honorable Casey Blair, Presiding
July 21, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PARKER, C.J., and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, John Michael Monaco, appeals from the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating him guilty 2 of possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility, 3
1 This cause was originally filed in the Fifth Court of Appeals.
It was transferred to this Court by a
docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001.
2 Subject to a plea agreement, Appellant’s adjudication was deferred, and he was placed on community supervision for a period of three years on June 4, 2020. The terms of his community supervision were twice modified and extended resulting in his community supervision period expiring on June 3, 2025. However, on August 8, 2024, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt alleging multiple violations of the terms of his community supervision.
3 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.11(a)(1).
and sentence of three years’ incarceration, $1,000 fine, $180 restitution award, and $382
in court costs. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw supported by an Anders 4 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted
a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no
reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the
controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,
counsel notified him of the motion to withdraw; provided him with the motion, Anders brief,
and a copy of the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response.
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed
counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief).
By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to
counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a
brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error
may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently
examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were
preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such
4 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we
conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of
Appellant’s conviction or sentence.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s
judgment. 5
Judy C. Parker
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
5 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
3