On October 5, 2017, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserted there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certified he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, provided appellant a copy of the record on appeal, and explained to appellant his right to file a pro se brief. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Now pending before this court is a pro se motion filed by appellant wherein he expresses his desire to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant requests an extension of time in which to file his response. Appellant also requests appointment of new counsel to assist him in preparing his response. Court-appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw has not been granted and he remains as appellant’s attorney of record until such a time as this court rules on his motion. Accordingly, appellant’s request for new counsel is DENIED .

We GRANT appellant’s request for an extension of time. Appellant’s response is due on or before December 14, 2017 .

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 14th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court