Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Timothy Wayne Queen was indicted in three separate Ector County cases for continuous sexual abuse of a young child under Texas Penal Code Section 21.02(b). The cases were tried together in the 70th District Court.
A jury convicted Queen of all three offenses and assessed a life sentence for each conviction. The trial court imposed the sentences and ordered them served consecutively.
On appeal, Queen’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding after reviewing the record and applicable law that no meritorious or arguable appellate issue existed. Counsel provided Queen with the required documents and notices concerning his rights, but Queen did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the brief and appellate record under Anders v. California and the applicable Texas procedures. It agreed with appointed counsel that the appeals presented no meritorious or arguable grounds for relief.
The court therefore granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed all three trial-court judgments, leaving intact Queen’s three consecutive life sentences. It also noted that Queen retained the right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record before determining that an appeal is frivolous.
- The court found no arguable ground to challenge Queen’s three convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a young child.
- The affirmance preserved the trial court’s order requiring Queen’s three life sentences to be served consecutively.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal lacks any nonfrivolous issue. Counsel must satisfy the required notice and record-access obligations, and the appellate court must conduct its own review rather than merely accept counsel’s assessment.
Because that independent review revealed no arguable error, the court affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences without reaching any contested substantive claim.