Joseph Glen Haren v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00735-CR

Joseph Glen Haren, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
NO. CR2023-477D, THE HONORABLE GLENN H. DEVLIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In front of a jury, Joseph Glen Haren pleaded (1) guilty to driving while

intoxicated—with two or more previous convictions for the same type of offense; (2) true to the

three felony enhancement paragraphs allegations; and (3) not true to the deadly weapon

allegation in the indictment. Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.42(d), 49.04(b), 49.09. After hearing

evidence, the jury, as instructed, found Haren guilty as charged in the indictment and found the

allegations in the enhancement paragraphs true.

It also found that Haren had used a deadly weapon during the commission of the

felony offense and assessed punishment at imprisonment for life.

Haren’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Haren’s court-appointed attorney’s brief
meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and

demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82

(1988) (explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both

that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . .

frivolous”). Haren’s counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion

and brief to Haren; advised Haren of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief,

and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. He also

provided to Haren a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only Haren’s

signature and the date and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Haren has not filed a pro se brief nor a motion

for extension of time to file a brief.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We

agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.

__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis

Affirmed

Filed: August 29, 2025

Do Not Publish

2