Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Lee Weber pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by exposure, a third-degree felony. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for seven years.
After the State moved to revoke, Weber pleaded true to the alleged violations. The trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years in prison, to run concurrently with a twenty-year sentence imposed in a companion prosecution for attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child.
Weber’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, representing that a professional review of the record disclosed no arguable ground for appeal. Counsel notified Weber of his rights, but Weber did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently examined the entire record and counsel’s brief, as required when appointed counsel files an Anders brief. It found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.
The court therefore affirmed the judgment in docket number 13-25-00599-CR without modification. It also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and directed counsel to provide Weber with the opinion and judgment and advise him of his right to seek discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently review the full record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- Weber’s plea of true to the revocation allegations was followed by adjudication of guilt and a ten-year prison sentence for indecency with a child by exposure.
- The court found no arguable appellate issue and affirmed the judgment in full.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s assessment does not end the matter; the appellate court must conduct its own examination of the proceedings before affirming.
It also distinguishes Weber’s indecency judgment, which was affirmed as entered, from the judgment in his companion case, which required a clerical modification to identify the correct statute for an attempted offense.