Derek Kashif Price v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed December 4, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00152-CR
__________

DEREK KASHIF PRICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas 1
Trial Court Cause No. 1785443

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Derek Kashif Price, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2024). The jury found the habitual offender enhancement
allegation to be “true,” and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for

1
This appeal was transferred to this court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket
equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp.
2024). We decide this case in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals under the
principles of stare decisis. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
fifty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Having found no arguable issues to present on appeal after an independent review
of the record, we affirm. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
During the guilt phase of trial, the State presented the testimony of six
witnesses. In March 2023, Appellant was a student at an automotive repair technical
college where the victim, Thomas Felgar, was an instructor and education
supervisor. On the afternoon of March 22, Appellant got into a dispute with his
instructors over bringing his personal vehicle into the mechanic shop area. When
Felgar told Appellant to remove his vehicle, Appellant punched Felgar, knocked him
unconscious, and he fell to the floor. Appellant then grabbed a twenty-pound steel
alignment ramp, launched himself into the air, and came down ramp-first onto
Felgar’s head and chest. Appellant body slammed Felgar with the ramp again before
he was tackled by another student; other students tried to keep Felgar alive until
paramedics arrived. Felgar spent the following month in the hospital, endured
multiple procedures to repair his facial injuries, and has lasting physical and
neurological effects from the assault. The jury reviewed photographs, medical
records showing the extent of Felgar’s injuries, and a cell phone video of Appellant
jumping onto Felgar’s unconscious body with the ramp.
After the State rested its case-in-chief, Appellant testified. He admitted that
he punched Felgar, who then “flew backward.” “[E]nraged and resentful,” he
grabbed the ramp and jumped on Felgar twice. According to Appellant, Felgar had
“just tried to make [his] engine bay explode,” so he was “forced to stop a[n]
explosion.” The jury deliberated for fifteen minutes before finding Appellant guilty.
During the punishment phase, the State introduced judgments for Appellant’s
robbery convictions, presented the testimony of Felgar’s wife, then the jury again
heard from Appellant. The jury found the habitual offender enhancement allegation
2
to be “true,” and assessed a fifty-year term of imprisonment. See PENAL § 12.42
(West 2019). The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and
supporting brief in which he assures this court that, after conducting a professional
evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable issues to present
on appeal. 2 See Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–09. Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
and an explanatory letter. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the
record and file a response to counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Although counsel mailed Appellant a
disc that purportedly contained the clerk’s record and reporter’s record, Appellant is
incarcerated and therefore unable to receive an electronic copy of the appellate
record.
Because appointed counsel bears the primary responsibility for ensuring an
appellant’s access to the record, we repeatedly directed counsel to provide Appellant
with a record he can fully examine. See, e.g., Pitchford v. State, No. 07-05-00254-
CR, 2006 WL 1587153, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 9, 2006, order). It is
important that he “facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review the

2
Appellate counsel’s brief contains no specific facts, no legal analysis or citations to controlling
authority, and incomplete or incorrect citations to the record. It therefore fails to demonstrate that counsel
conducted “a conscientious and thorough review of the law and facts” as he claims and, as appellate counsel,
is required of him. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 407–08 (The Anders brief provides appellate courts “with a roadmap for their review of the
record because the court itself must be assured that the attorney has made a legally correct determination
that the appeal is frivolous.”). Generally, neither we nor our sister courts accept such boilerplate, inadequate
briefs that fall below legal and professional standards. See Limauro v. State, 675 S.W.3d 368, 375 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2023, no pet.); In re N.F.M., 582 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, no pet.)
(en banc) (“[C]ounsel’s brief does not explain why counsel has concluded the issue is frivolous . . . in a
way that allows appellant—without the assistance of a lawyer—to understand why [his] lawyer is not
advocating on [his] behalf, to evaluate counsel’s position, and to have a starting point to decide whether to
file a pro se brief.”). However, Appellant’s pro se filings reveal that he has reviewed the record and had
the opportunity to advocate on his own behalf, and our independent review revealed no arguable issues.
We thus affirm notwithstanding the deficient briefing provided.
3
appellate record.” Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). To avoid further delay, we abated this appeal and the clerk
of this court prepared and mailed a duplicate reporter’s record and clerk’s record to
Appellant to use in preparing his response to counsel’s Anders brief.
Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief in which he
contests the accuracy of the record. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se
response, a court of appeals may only determine whether: (1) the appeal is wholly
frivolous and, if so, issue an opinion explaining that it has independently reviewed
the record and finds no reversible error; or (2) arguable grounds for appeal exist and,
if so, remand the cause to the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel to brief the
issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and
Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, the brief, and Appellant’s
response, and conclude that the appeal is without merit.3
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

December 4, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
4