Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Taylor Allan Dunn pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for ten years. After Dunn repeatedly violated the supervision conditions, the court imposed sanctions on several occasions, including stays in intermediate sanction facilities, while continuing his supervision.
In 2025, the State again moved to revoke. At the October 2, 2025 hearing, Dunn pleaded true to every alleged violation. After hearing testimony, the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. His appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that the record presented no arguable grounds for appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently examined the entire record and counsel’s brief, as required when appointed counsel submits an Anders brief. The court found no arguable reversible error and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The court also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and ordered counsel to provide Dunn with the opinion and judgment and advise him of his right to seek discretionary review. It denied Dunn’s motion for substitute appointed appellate counsel because he was not entitled to a second court-appointed attorney, explaining that he could pursue further review through retained counsel or a pro se petition.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving a compliant Anders brief must independently review the full record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- Dunn’s pleas of true to all alleged supervision violations preceded the revocation, adjudication of guilt, and twenty-year prison sentence.
- After finding no arguable reversible error, the court affirmed, allowed appointed counsel to withdraw, and declined to appoint replacement counsel.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no non-frivolous issue. Counsel must provide a professional evaluation of the record and protect the defendant’s opportunity to review the record, respond pro se, and seek discretionary review.
It also confirms that an appellant whose Anders appeal is found frivolous has no right to a second appointed appellate lawyer, although the appellant may retain counsel or petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals without counsel.