Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Tommy Leroy Andrews of indecency with a child by exposure and indecency with a child by sexual contact. For each count, the jury found a prior-felony enhancement allegation true.
The jury assessed concurrent prison terms of 20 years for the exposure offense and 60 years for the contact offense, along with a $10,000 fine on each count. Andrews appealed, but his appointed attorney filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, representing that a thorough review disclosed no nonfrivolous ground for reversal. Andrews was notified of his right to review the record and respond but did not file a pro se response, and the State waived a response.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire appellate record and concluded that it contained no reversible error or arguable ground for review. The court therefore determined that Andrews’s appeal was frivolous.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgments and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. It also dismissed any remaining motions as moot and directed counsel to notify Andrews of the result and his ability to pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record rather than rely solely on counsel’s assessment.
- The court found no arguable appellate issue affecting either conviction, the enhancement findings, or the punishments imposed.
- Although counsel was permitted to withdraw, counsel remained obligated to notify Andrews of the decision and his right to seek discretionary review.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel must provide a professional evaluation of the record and notify the defendant of the right to access the record and respond, while the court retains responsibility for independently deciding whether any arguable issue exists.
Because that review revealed no arguable ground for reversal, Andrews’s convictions, concurrent 20- and 60-year prison sentences, and fines remain in place.