Lance Steele Wallace v. State, 11-17-00168-CR

Lance Steele Wallace pleaded open guilty to: one count of delivery of >4 grams of methamphetamine and two counts of possession of <1 gram of methamphetamine.
Trial court accepted the pleas, held punishment hearings, and convicted Wallace.
Punishment: 45 years’ confinement + $2,500 fine for delivery; two concurrent 24-month state‑jail terms for the possession counts.
Appellant’s court‑appointed counsel filed Anders/Kelly briefs and motions to withdraw, concluding appeals were frivolous and served Wallace with records and explanatory materials.
Wallace filed a pro se response asserting (1) improper admission of extraneous bad‑acts at punishment and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The court independently reviewed the record under Anders/Schulman procedures and concluded no reversible error; it granted counsel’s motions to withdraw and dismissed the appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeals present non‑frivolous issues warranting counsel	Wallace asserted extraneous bad acts were improperly admitted at punishment and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel argued no meritorious grounds; appeals are frivolous after record review	Court found appeals frivolous, no reversible error; dismissed appeals
Adequacy of Anders/Kelly procedures	Wallace sought access to records and filed pro se response	Counsel followed Anders/Kelly/Schulman requirements and notified appellant of rights	Court found counsel complied with required procedures and allowed withdrawal
Whether the record supports ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal	Wallace asserted ineffective assistance at trial	State and counsel noted record is generally undeveloped to resolve IAC on direct appeal	Court noted direct‑appeal records rarely suffice to overcome presumption of effective assistance and did not find reversible error
Whether remand for new counsel is required	Wallace’s pro se response raised issues	Counsel asked to withdraw and urged dismissal; no arguable grounds shown on record	Court did not find arguable grounds and declined remand; appeals dismissed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when appointed counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (procedures for counsel withdrawal and Anders‑type briefs in Texas)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (independent appellate review required when counsel files Anders brief)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (when to remand for new counsel vs. dismiss under Anders/Schulman)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (record on direct appeal is generally insufficient to resolve ineffective‑assistance claims)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural precedent cited regarding counsel withdrawal)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority cited)
Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority cited)
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.) (procedural authority cited)
Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (procedural authority cited)