Joe Starks, Jr. v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed June 4, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00275-CR
__________

JOE STARKS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2-257-24

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Appellant, Joe Starks, of
criminal trespass, a Class B misdemeanor. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.05
(West Supp. 2025). The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement
for 170 days in the Taylor County Jail with credit for time served.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel
has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw,
an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to object to counsel’s motion to withdraw, to
review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and to file a
petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–
44, Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 409–12, and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. 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. 1 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27 & n.6.
The State presented the testimony of three witnesses at trial, including the
victims, and several video recordings of Appellant on the victim’s property.
Significantly, both victims testified that Appellant entered their property after they

We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of
1

Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
2
had informed him that he did not have permission to do so. Appellant testified in
his case-in-chief that he believed he had purchased the property owned by the
victims but he had no documentation to support his claim that there was any transfer
of ownership. On this record, we agree with counsel that there are no arguable issues
to present on appeal.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

June 4, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3