Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A Liberty County jury convicted Charlie Leon Rhodes of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, a third-degree felony. After Rhodes pleaded true to the State’s punishment-enhancement allegation, the jury assessed a sentence of twenty-seven years and six months’ imprisonment.
Rhodes’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, stating that a review of the record and applicable law revealed no meritorious appellate issues. Rhodes filed a pro se response challenging the use of prior felony convictions to enhance punishment in a companion case involving unlawful possession of a firearm, but the court concluded that his argument did not affect this appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals determined that counsel complied with the requirements governing Anders briefs and motions to withdraw. Counsel had provided Rhodes with the brief and motion, explained his rights to review the record and respond pro se, supplied the appellate record, and informed him of his right to seek further review.
After independently reviewing the entire appellate record, the court found no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. It therefore affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the entire record for potentially nonfrivolous grounds for appeal.
- Appointed counsel satisfied the required notice and record-access obligations owed to Rhodes before withdrawing.
- Rhodes’s pro se sentencing argument concerned a companion case and did not provide a ground for relief in this appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s assessment alone does not end the appeal; the court must independently review the record before affirming the judgment and permitting counsel to withdraw.