Marcus Andretti Shade v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00591-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

MARCUS ANDRETTI SHADE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT
OF GONZALES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

Appellant Marcus Andretti Shade was charged with evading arrest or detention

with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(b)(2)(A). A court-

appointed psychologist examined appellant and concluded that he was competent to

stand trial and was not legally insane at the time of the offense. Pursuant to an agreement

with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense and true to an
enhancement paragraph alleging he had previously been convicted of a felony, thereby

raising the potential punishment range to that of a second-degree felony. See id.

§ 12.42(a). On September 30, 2019, the trial court signed an order deferring appellant’s

adjudication and placing him on community supervision for ten years.

On November 14, 2019, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that

appellant violated the terms of his community supervision in various manners, including

by committing the offense of driving while intoxicated on November 3, 2019. After a

hearing, the trial court continued appellant’s community supervision.

The State filed a second motion to adjudicate guilt on August 6, 2025, again

alleging that appellant violated the terms of his community supervision in various

manners, including by committing the offense of “Bank Robbery” on December 23, 2019,

as well as the offenses of theft of property and evading arrest on April 7, 2025. Appellant

signed a “Stipulation and Judicial Confession” admitting to all of the violations alleged in

the 2025 motion to adjudicate. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion,

adjudicated appellant guilty of the underlying evading arrest offense, and sentenced

appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Counsel states in his brief that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and that

“there are no arguable issues on appeal concerning the decision to adjudicate guilt or the

length of sentence.” See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

2
Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough,

professional evaluation showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an

appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.

proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points

of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and

procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible

error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) notified

appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant

with copies of these pleadings; (3) informed appellant of his rights to file a pro se

response, to review the record prior to filing that response, and to seek discretionary

review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form

motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires appellant’s signature

and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. Appellant timely filed the form pro se motion for access to

the record, and the record was provided to him on February 27, 2026. Appellant filed a

pro se response on April 2, 2026.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se

3
response, and we have found no arguable reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in

the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed

a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no

pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing

the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion

to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is

frivolous.” (citations omitted))). We grant the motion to withdraw.

Counsel is ordered to send a copy of this memorandum opinion and its

accompanying judgment to appellant, and to advise him of his right to file a petition for

discretionary review within five days of the date of this memorandum opinion.1 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206

S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this
Court. 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(a), and must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

4
IV. CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of April, 2026.

5