What is an Anders brief in Texas appeals?

CB Sanders v. The State of Texas

COA07 — February 5, 2026

In Sanders v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether an appeal has merit after a defendant enters a 'plea of true' to violating community supervision. The appellant, who was originally on deferred adjudication for promoting prostitution, admitted to ten violations. The court analyzed the case under the Anders framework, which requires an independent review of the record for nonfrivolous issues. The court held that because a 'plea of true' constitutes sufficient evidence standing alone to support an adjudication of guilt, the appeal was meritless. This ruling confirms that such admissions are legally conclusive, leaving no room for a defendant to challenge the evidentiary basis of the trial court's judgment.

Westyn Gregory Whetstone v. The State of Texas

COA07 — February 5, 2026

In Whetstone v. State, a defendant was convicted of criminal trespass, but the written judgment erroneously labeled the offense as a Class A misdemeanor involving a 'habitation' despite the State having abandoned that specific allegation at trial. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), which allows appellate courts to reform judgments to 'speak the truth' when they have the necessary information to do so. The court held that because the jury charge and sentencing only reflected a Class B offense, the written judgment contained a clerical error that must be reformed to reflect the actual adjudication.

Antonio Thomas-Edwardo Montoya v. The State of Texas

COA07 — January 28, 2026

In Montoya v. State, the appellant challenged a trial court's judgment that adjudicated his guilt for a felony drug offense and sentenced him to twelve months in state jail after he violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. The Seventh Court of Appeals performed an independent review following an 'Anders' brief filed by counsel, who determined the appeal was frivolous. The court analyzed the effect of Montoya's 'pleas of true' to twenty separate supervision violations, concluding that such admissions serve as judicial confessions. Since Texas law requires only a single violation to support an adjudication of guilt, the court held that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

In the Interest of L.S.

COA09 — February 12, 2026

In this parental rights termination case, the mother's rights were terminated based on findings of endangering conditions, endangering conduct, prior termination, and failure to comply with a court-ordered service plan. On appeal, the mother's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, stating that a professional review of the record revealed no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. The Ninth Court of Appeals conducted an independent evaluation of the trial record to ensure the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard was met. Finding that counsel had followed all procedural requirements and that no arguable grounds for reversal existed, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Granado v. The State of Texas

COA13 — January 29, 2026

After being convicted of kidnapping and aggravated assault and sentenced to 25 years in prison, Daniel Granado appealed. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and the procedural steps taken by counsel. Finding no arguable grounds for error in the adjudication of guilt or the enhanced sentencing, the court affirmed the convictions. This finality is significant for family law proceedings, as it provides a conclusive basis to invoke Texas Family Code § 153.004, which restricts conservatorship and possession for parents with a history of family violence.

Anthony David McWilliams v. The State of Texas

COA13 — January 29, 2026

In this criminal appeal, Anthony David McWilliams challenged a nine-year prison sentence for second-degree felony possession of methamphetamine. The case originated from a motion to adjudicate guilt after McWilliams violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. McWilliams pleaded 'true' to the violations, leading to his adjudication and sentencing. On appeal, his counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and the procedural requirements of the Anders process. Finding no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Pena v. The State of Texas

COA07 — January 28, 2026

In Pena v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could assess $1,600 in attorney’s fees and duplicate court costs against a defendant who had been determined indigent and appointed counsel. The legal issues arose from two criminal cases adjudicated in a single, consolidated proceeding. The court analyzed Texas law, which presumes that a party remains indigent throughout the proceedings unless a 'material change' in financial circumstances is proven. Additionally, the court reviewed statutory prohibitions against assessing court costs multiple times for cases heard together. The court held that the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees without evidence of the defendant's ability to pay and by double-charging court costs, resulting in a modification of the judgments to strike the improper fees and costs.

IN THE INTEREST OF T.F., A CHILD

COA02 — January 30, 2026

In this case, a father appealed the termination of his parental rights. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a thorough review of the record, there were no valid legal grounds for an appeal, and simultaneously moved to withdraw as counsel. The Second Court of Appeals performed its own independent review of the record and agreed that the appeal was frivolous, affirming the trial court's termination order. However, the court denied the attorney's motion to withdraw. Applying the Texas Supreme Court's standard from In re P.M., the court held that an appointed attorney’s duty in a termination case continues through the filing of a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court, and the mere fact that an appeal is frivolous does not constitute 'good cause' to allow an attorney to withdraw.

Westyn Gregory Whetstone v. The State of Texas

COA07 — February 5, 2026

In Whetstone v. State, a defendant was convicted of Class B misdemeanor criminal trespass, but the trial court's written judgment incorrectly recorded the offense as a more serious Class A misdemeanor involving a habitation. On appeal, the Seventh Court of Appeals performed an independent review of the record and found that the State had explicitly abandoned the higher charge before the jury was instructed. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court analyzed the discrepancy as a clerical error and held that it had a mandatory duty to reform the judgment to 'make the record speak the truth.' The court modified the judgment to reflect the correct statute and offense degree, ensuring the defendant's criminal history accurately reflected the actual adjudication.

In the Matter of B.T.

COA02 — January 30, 2026

In In the Matter of B.T., the Second Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court's order transferring a young man to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to finish an eighteen-year murder sentence. While the court found that the transfer was required by law because the respondent could not complete his minimum confinement before turning nineteen, it identified an error regarding court costs. The appellate court held that because the respondent had been declared indigent, that status was presumed to continue through the appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed the prison transfer but modified the judgment to strike all assessed court costs.

Ougo Menchaca Vela v. The State of Texas

COA13 — January 29, 2026

In this criminal appeal, Appellant Ougo Menchaca Vela challenged his conviction and twenty-year sentence for indecency with a child. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting that the appeal was frivolous and presented no arguable grounds for reversal. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the entire record, including the jury's verdict and the legality of the sentence, as required by Texas appellate standards. The court concluded that there were no procedural or substantive errors and affirmed the trial court's judgment while granting counsel's motion to withdraw.

Jarven Roberson v. The State of Texas

COA07 — January 27, 2026

Appellant Jarven Roberson appealed the trial court's decision to adjudicate his guilt for third-degree felony assault family violence involving strangulation after he violated the terms of his deferred adjudication community supervision. The Seventh Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record under the Anders standard to determine if any non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. The court found that because Roberson admitted to violations and the eight-year sentence was within the legal statutory range, there was no reversible error. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.

In re K.N., M.N., and M.N., Children

COA02 — February 19, 2026

The Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father following a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and unlivable home conditions. On appeal, the parents challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court's endangerment findings, and the mother argued her due process rights were violated when the trial proceeded in the absence of a witness. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, analyzing the parents' pattern of conduct under Texas Family Code \u00a7 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court held that persistent domestic violence and chronic substance abuse constitute an endangering environment, and further ruled that the mother failed to preserve her due process claim because she did not file a sworn motion for continuance as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251.

In the Interest of E.R.H., et al, Children

COA04 — January 28, 2026

After a trial court terminated a father's parental rights to six children based on endangerment and failure to complete a service plan, the father appealed. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, stating that after a professional review of the record, there were no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. The Fourth Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, evaluating whether 'clear and convincing' evidence supported the statutory termination grounds and the children's best interest. The court found the evidence of environmental endangerment and failure to comply with the service plan was sufficient to uphold the ruling, affirming the termination order.

COA10 — February 5, 2026

In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, S.W. appealed an order committing her to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. Her court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous and a motion to withdraw. The Tenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Family Code § 51.101(a), which requires counsel appointed at the initial detention stage to represent the child 'until the case is terminated.' Drawing a parallel to the Texas Supreme Court’s 'continuing duty' doctrine in parental rights termination cases (In re P.M.), the court interpreted 'termination' to mean the exhaustion of all appeals through the Texas Supreme Court. Consequently, while the court affirmed the commitment order, it denied the attorney's motion to withdraw.

Zipper v. State

COA03 — February 20, 2026

After Paul Daniel Zipper pleaded guilty to multiple violent felonies including murder and aggravated assault, his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that any appeal would be frivolous. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record, including the voluntariness of the plea and the statutory ranges of the sentences imposed. Finding no arguably meritorious grounds for reversal, the court affirmed the convictions and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, establishing the finality of the criminal record for subsequent legal proceedings.

Zipper v. State

COA03 — February 20, 2026

Paul Daniel Zipper pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, including murder and aggravated assault, and was sentenced to fifty years in prison. His court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, stating the appeal was frivolous. The Third Court of Appeals conducted an independent review of the record and Zipper’s pro se response, applying the framework established in Anders v. California. The court determined there were no arguably meritorious grounds for appeal, affirmed the trial court's judgments of conviction, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. This affirmance establishes 'appellate finality,' allowing the convictions to be used as conclusive evidence in parallel family law proceedings.