Counsel for the appellant has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. However, we find counsel’s brief is deficient. An Anders brief is required to “demonstrate that counsel has conscientiously examined the record and determined that the appeal is so frivolous that the appellant is not entitled to counsel on appeal.” Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Specifically, the brief contains no discussion of the evidence or substantive legal analysis of the objections made at trial. The brief omits a specific discussion of the trial proceedings, which might arguably contain support for an appeal. Thus, the brief does not contain a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for appeal. Id. ; see High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

We therefore strike the Anders brief and order Vincent D. Callahan, counsel for appellant, to file an amended brief that complies with Kelly v. State by January 4, 2018. Counsel is reminded that his duties of representation do not cease when he files a motion to withdraw; counsel must continue to “act with competence, commitment and dedication to the interest of the client” until the court of appeals grants the motion. Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court