GUERRA v. STATE (2026)

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced on February 27, 2025. On September 15, 2025, Appellant's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel certified that he had mailed Appellant the record, the brief and a letter explaining Appellant's rights. Appellant did not file a pro se response brief.

In response to a request from the court of appeals, counsel provided a receipt showing a mailing on September 13,2025, addressed to Appellant at a TDCJ unit in Iowa Park, Texas. The tracking number showed a delivery date to that address on September 15, 2025. However, information from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Time Management Classification and Transportation Division shows that Appellant was transferred to the Bexar County Jail on September 10, 2025, and remains there at present. Apparently, unbeknownst to appellate counsel Appellant never received any information about his appeal because he had been transferred to the county jail before counsel's mailing was sent or delivered to the Iowa Park location.

The court of appeals issued an opinion stating it had reviewed the entire record and appellate counsel's brief. The court concluded the appeal was frivolous and without merit under Anders. Guerra v. State, No. 04-25-00392-CR (Tex.App. – San Antonio, delivered March 11, 2026). The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw.

Appellant has now filed a petition for discretionary review in which he asserts that he has been held in the Bexar County Jail for some time and has never received any information from his appellate counsel that the appeal was frivolous, that counsel would withdraw, or what Appellant's rights were in this regard.

Based on this record, Appellant's claim is supported. Appellant was never informed about the Anders appeal and his associated rights. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Despite counsel's efforts, Appellant was not accorded his rights under Anders and Kelly. Although the court of appeals has issued an opinion based on the Anders brief and allowed counsel to withdraw, it must rectify the situation in accordance with Kelly.

We grant appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with Kelly.

Per curiam.