Kendrick King v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00026-CR

KENDRICK KING, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 367th District Court
Denton County, Texas1
Trial Court No. F19-3441-158, Honorable Brent Hill, Presiding

June 28, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Appellant, Kendrick King, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty

of three counts of injury to a child2 and sentencing him to a twenty-three-year term of

incarceration. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw

1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket

equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04(a).
supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the

trial court.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in her 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 her motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and a motion to access 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 filed a response. The

State has not filed a brief.

By her 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

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.

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2
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.4

Judy C. Parker
Justice

Do not publish.

4 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