Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Enrique Darnell Griesbach pleaded nolo contendere to sexual assault, a second-degree felony carrying a punishment range of two to twenty years in prison. The trial court placed him on deferred-adjudication community supervision for eight years.
The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging ten violations of Griesbach’s community-supervision conditions. Griesbach pleaded true to four violations, and the State waived the other six. The trial court found the four violations true, adjudicated him guilty, revoked community supervision, and sentenced him to ten years in prison.
Griesbach’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, representing that a review of the record disclosed no arguable ground for appeal. Griesbach filed a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire record, counsel’s Anders brief, and Griesbach’s pro se response. It concluded that nothing in the case would arguably support an appeal and therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
The court did not decide the merits of each claim in Griesbach’s pro se response, explaining that its role under the Anders procedure was to determine whether any arguable appellate ground existed. Because it found none, the court did not remand for appointment of new counsel.
The court also granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and directed counsel to send Griesbach the opinion and judgment and advise him of his right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently examine the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- When the appellant submits a pro se response, the court determines whether any arguable appellate issue exists but does not adjudicate each pro se claim on its merits.
- Griesbach’s pleas of true to four alleged community-supervision violations resulted in adjudication, revocation, and a ten-year prison sentence, and the appellate court found no arguable basis to challenge the judgment.
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. The court must conduct its own review rather than rely solely on counsel’s assessment.
The decision also underscores that identifying an arguable issue would require appointment of new counsel and adversarial briefing; finding none permits affirmance and withdrawal of appointed appellate counsel while preserving the defendant’s ability to seek discretionary review.