Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00250-CR No. 07-26-00251-CR No. 07-26-00252-CR CHAD HAYNES, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 16th District Court Denton County, Texas1 Trial Court Nos. F22-3274-362, F22-3275-362, F22-3276-362 Honorable Sherry Shipman, Presiding October 23, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and PRATT, JJ. Appellant, Chad Haynes, appeals from the trial court’s judgments convicting him of evading arrest and two counts of accident involving personal injury. 2 Appellant’s court- 1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket-equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. In the event of any conflict, we apply the transferor court’s case law. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(a); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 550.021(c). appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgments of the trial court. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has filed a response. The State has not filed a brief. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeals are frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. 3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 2 App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s convictions or sentences. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. 4 Judy C. Parker Chief Justice Do not publish. 4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33. 3