Cedric Bernard James v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
Date FiledJuly 9, 2026
Docket10-25-00083-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00083-CR
Cedric Bernard James,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
12th District Court of Walker County, Texas
Judge David W. Moorman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 29578
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court found Cedric Bernard James violated six terms and
conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision for the felony
offense of injury to an elderly person. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04. As a
result, the trial court found James guilty and assessed his punishment at ten
years confinement. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.34. This appeal ensued. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
James’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders
brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the
appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief
evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with
the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed
the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all
the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386
U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346,
349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–
11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit”
when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S.
429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a
review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
James v. State Page 2
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of James is granted.
MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
CR25
James v. State Page 3