Opinion issued August 6, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-25-00754-CR
CLINT STEVEN JANECKA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 25th District Court
Colorado County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 24-162
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Clint Steven Janecka of breach of computer security with
damages of between $2500 and $30,000.1 The indictment also alleged that Janecka
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 33.02(b-1), (b-2)(4).
had a prior felony conviction for an offense involving a deadly weapon finding.
Janecka pleaded true, which elevated the offense to a third-degree felony.2 The jury
assessed a punishment of six years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine.3 Janecka
appealed.
Janecka’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with
an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is
unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153,
155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the
Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and
supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Further, Janecka’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the
motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Janecka and informed him of his right to
2
See id. § 12.35(c)(2)(B).
3
See id. § 12.34.
2
access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.4
Janecka did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.
The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,
193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record,
that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—
determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly
frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw.5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Gregory Sherwood must
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of
4
Subsequently, this Court also notified Janecka at his last known address of his right
to access the record and file a response and provided him with a form motion to
access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014).
5
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Janecka of the result of this appeal and
that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6.
3
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4