Full Opinion

Opinion filed August 31, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00150-CR __________ EDWARD NAVARETTE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 24-0287-CCL MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Appellant, Edward Navarette, of driving while intoxicated, a Class B misdemeanor, and the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Ector County jail for 180 days and a $500 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(a), (b) (West Supp. 2025). Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and (4) file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a pro se document that we construe to be his response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine whether: (1) the appeal is wholly frivolous and, if so, issue an opinion explaining that it has independently reviewed the record and finds no reversible error; or (2) arguable grounds for appeal exist and, if so, remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel who will be instructed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, the brief, and Appellant’s pro se response, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 826–27. We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of 1 Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE August 31, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3