Full Opinion

Opinion issued July 30, 2026 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00160-CR ——————————— GARY DEAN CRAWFORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 23-CR-3590 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Gary Dean Crawford of assault, by impeding breath, of an individual with whom he had a dating relationship, with a previous conviction for the same offense.1 Crawford pleaded “true” to one enhancement paragraph, which elevated the punishment range for the offense to that of a first-degree felony. 2 The jury assessed a punishment of life in prison. 3 Crawford appealed. Crawford’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Further, Crawford’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Crawford and informed him of his right to 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The prior conviction for assault of a family member by impeding breath made this second-degree felony. See id. § 22.01(b-3). 2 See id. § 12.42(b). The State alleged two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment but abandoned one at trial. 3 See id. § 12.32. 2 access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. 4 Crawford did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Joel H. Bennett must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of 4 Subsequently, this Court also notified Crawford at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided him with a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 5 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Crawford of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 3 this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Morgan. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4