NUMBER 13-25-00570-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
RONALD WAYNE KENDRICKS JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH DISTRICT COURT
OF MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Peña, West, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña
On March 14, 2024, appellant Ronald Wayne Kendricks, Jr. was indicted on one
count of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL
CODE § 38.04(b)(2)(A). The jury subsequently found appellant guilty and sentenced him
to ten years’ community supervision. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed a brief with this Court stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm. 1
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Counsel states in his brief that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and that
“no arguable ground for reversal exists.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as
it presents a thorough, professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable
grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically
advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record
references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”);
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) notified
appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant
with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file a pro se
response, to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek discretionary
review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a copy
of the appellate record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20.
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.
1 This appeal was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco pursuant to an order issued
by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. We are required to follow the precedent of the transferor court to the extent it differs from our own. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found
no arguable reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered
the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”);
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed
a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no
pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing
the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion
to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw.
Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its
accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review, within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion. 2 See TEX.
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, he 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 the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
3
R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
30th day of July, 2026.
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
4