Fabian Pancho Tankesly v. State, 07-17-00150-CR

Appellant Fabian Pancho Tankesly pleaded guilty to theft of service (>$1,500 < $20,000), enhanced to a third-degree felony by two prior state-jail convictions; sentence: 10 years, suspended for 8 years community supervision, $1,500 fine.
The State moved to revoke community supervision; the trial court revoked and imposed the original 10-year sentence; Tankesly appealed the revocation.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief, notified Tankesly of his right to file a pro se response, and provided a form motion to obtain the appellate record.
Tankesly filed pro se motions in this Court: (1) request to appoint new appellate counsel due to alleged ineffective appellate counsel, (2) request for access to the appellate record, and (3) motion for an extension of time to file a pro se brief.
The Court denied the request to appoint new counsel (explaining appointment authority rests with the trial court and counsel remains until the withdrawal is ruled on), denied the pro se record-request but ordered counsel to provide an accessible copy of the appellate record to Appellant and certify compliance, and granted an extension to February 16, 2018 for any pro se response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Request to appoint new appellate counsel	Appellant claimed ineffective appellate counsel and asked for replacement	Court/State argued appointment authority lies with trial court and counsel remains until withdrawal is granted	Denied — Court lacks authority to appoint/replace counsel on appeal; counsel remains until motion is ruled on
Motion to withdraw by counsel (Anders procedure)	Counsel filed Anders brief asserting appeal frivolous and moved to withdraw	Court noted motion pending and counsel still represents Appellant until granted	Motion to withdraw remains pending; counsel continues representation until court rules (implicit)
Pro se Motion for Access to Appellate Record	Appellant requested this Court order the district clerk to provide a copy of the appellate record	Court declined direct order to clerk but required appellate counsel to deliver an accessible copy to Appellant and certify compliance; costs borne by trial court due to indigence	Denied as filed; court ordered counsel to provide accessible record by Dec 15, 2017 and certify compliance; costs to be submitted to trial court
Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief	Appellant requested more time to file a pro se response	Court had previously notified Appellant of rights and deadlines but considered request	Granted — pro se response due Feb 16, 2018

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel may seek to withdraw on appeal via brief asserting frivolousness and requires procedures protecting defendant’s rights)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (counsel remains appointed and in place until a court grants a motion to withdraw)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses appellate indigent defendant’s right to access the appellate record and procedures for counsel to facilitate that access)