Jason Claire Reese v. State, 12-14-00363-CR

Indictment in Smith County for burglary of a habitation with a prior felony conviction.
Appellant Reese pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and true to the enhancement without an agreed punishment.
The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and held a sentencing hearing.
Trial court found Reese guilty, enhanced the prior conviction true, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
Appeal followed; counsel filed an Anders/Gainous brief asserting no reversible error or jurisdictional defects.
This Court conducted independent review, found no reversible error, granted leave to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Anders compliance preserves issues on appeal	Counsel found no reversible issues.	Independent review confirms no error.	No reversible error; Anders satisfied.
Whether any reversible error exists in the record	Record contains no reversible error.	Appellant has no viable issue on appeal.	Record supported the conviction and sentence; no error found.
Whether the appeal should be affirmed with counsel permitted to withdraw	Appeal is wholly frivolous.	Counsel seeks withdrawal with no issues to raise.	Appeal affirmed; leave to withdraw granted.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural framework for Anders briefs in criminal appeals)
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (requirements for reviewing Anders brief and potential issues)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (support for procedures following Anders/Gainous)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (plain error standards related to appellate procedure)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding; withdrawal procedures for counsel)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc considerations for frivolous appeal)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (independent review of record after Anders brief)