Mark Daniel Mallow v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00193-CR
No. 04-24-00194-CR

Mark Daniel MALLOW,
Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2023CR6598, 2023CR6599
Honorable Christine Del Prado, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2025

AFFIRMED

Following the jury trial of two consolidated cases, appellant Mark Daniel Mallow was

convicted on twenty counts of possession of child pornography in one case and one count of

possession with the intent to promote child pornography in the second case. In accordance with

the jury’s punishment recommendation and after considering the State’s motions to cumulate

Mallow’s sentences on all twenty-one counts, the trial court sentenced Mallow to six years in
04-24-00193-CR, 04-24-00194-CR

prison for each of the twenty counts of possession of child pornography and eleven years in prison

for the one count of possession with the intent to promote child pornography. The trial court

cumulated all twenty-one sentences. Mallow appeals.

Mallow’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal

authority, counsel’s brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes

that these appeals are frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744–45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a

professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S.

at 744–45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812–13. In compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel certified that he served copies of the brief and

motion to withdraw on Mallow, informed Mallow of his right to review the record and file a pro

se brief, and explained to Mallow the procedure for obtaining the record. This court subsequently

set a deadline for Mallow to file a pro se brief. Mallow then requested a copy of the record, which

this court provided to him. Subsequently, Mallow filed a pro se brief. The State did not file a brief

in response.

We have reviewed the appellate record, the Anders brief, and Mallow’s pro se brief. We

conclude that there are no arguable grounds for appeal, and these appeals are wholly frivolous and

without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting court

of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but should

only determine if the appeal is frivolous). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments of

conviction and grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,

-2-
04-24-00193-CR, 04-24-00194-CR

85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Mallow 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 either the date of this opinion or from “the day the

last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by the

court of appeals.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for

discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

Irene Rios, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-