Steven Barker v. The State of TexasAppeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00140-CR STEVEN BARKER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. 20797 MEMORANDUM OPINION Steven Barker made an open plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated kidnapping. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, Barker pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Barker appealed. Barker s originally appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, asserting that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal was frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Barker filed a pro se response; however, he did not raise any arguable issues. Subsequently, Barker s originally appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw by the trial court because of a conflict of interest, and the trial court appointed Barker new appellate counsel.1 Barker s new appellate counsel nevertheless filed her own motion to withdraw and adopted the Anders brief of former counsel. Although informed of his right to do so, Barker filed no further response to the Anders brief. In an Anders case, we must, after a full examination of all the proceedings, ¦ decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 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, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed counsel s motion to withdraw from representation of Barker. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Barker a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, the motion to withdraw filed by Barker s originally appointed counsel in this Court is dismissed as moot. 1 Barker v. State Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed April 25, 2013 Do not publish [CRPM] Barker v. State Page 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
