Matthew John McVaney, Jr. v. State, 10-16-00259-CR

Appellant Matthew John McVaney Jr. was indicted for online solicitation of a minor (second-degree felony), pleaded not guilty, was tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in TDCJ.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, stating no arguable grounds for appeal after reviewing the record.
Counsel certified compliance with procedural requirements: record review, service of the Anders brief and motion on appellant, provision of the appellate record, and notice of appellant’s right to file a pro se response.
Appellant was given time and materials to file a pro se response or request the record but did not file one or request the record.
The court performed an independent, full review of the record under Anders/Penson principles and found no reversible error; it affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Properness of Anders brief and motion to withdraw	Counsel: reviewed record, found no arguable issues, filed Anders brief and motion to withdraw	State: record shows no reversible error; counsel complied with requirements	Court: counsel met Anders/High/Kelly requirements; granted motion to withdraw
Duty of appellate court to conduct independent review	Counsel: identified no arguable issues, so court should review for frivolity	State: appellate court must independently examine the record under Penson/Anders	Court: performed full review, found case wholly frivolous, affirmed judgment
Notice and opportunity for appellant to pursue pro se review/record access	Counsel: provided appellant with brief, motion, appellate record access form, and notice of rights	State: appellant received adequate notice and did not exercise rights	Court: counsel satisfied Kelly obligations; appellant did not file a pro se response; fair assurance of proper notice
Availability of further review by Court of Criminal Appeals	Appellant: may seek discretionary review pro se or with counsel	State: no substitute counsel will be appointed; PDR must meet filing rules and deadlines	Court: advised appellant of right to file petition for discretionary review within 30 days; no appointment of new counsel

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appointed counsel must advise court if appeal is frivolous and may move to withdraw with a brief)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court must conduct independent review when counsel files an Anders brief)
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Texas guidance on content of Anders brief and procedures)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (requirement for full examination of proceedings after Anders brief)
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals met Rule 47.1 by stating it reviewed record and found no reversible error)
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (procedural standards for Anders-related filings)
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (counsel must discuss why no reversible errors exist)
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appointed counsel must facilitate appellant's access to the appellate record)
Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (procedural guidance on Anders withdrawals)
Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (attorney who deems appeal frivolous must withdraw)
Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997) (pro se response need not comply with appellate rules to be considered)