Mack Edward Johnson V. State Texas (10/19/94‪)‬

Because this court has been presented with an increasing number of Anders briefs recently, we will use these combined causes to outline our understanding of "Anders' law," both procedural and substantive, and the duties of the bench and bar of this district when confronted with an apparently frivolous appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The rule that a defendant does not have the constitutional right to assistance of counsel for a petition for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals has effectively ended that court's experience with "frivolous appeals." See Ayala v. State, 633 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). In fact, since the intermediate courts of appeals were given criminal jurisdiction by constitutional amendment in 1981, the Court of Criminal Appeals has dealt substantively with Anders in only three published opinions. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Sutherland v. State, 658 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Ayala, 633 S.W.2d at 526. Similarly, we find only one published opinion from this court relating to an Anders issue. See Graham v. State, 649 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. App.--Waco 1983, no pet.).