Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rondrael Lamar Rossum was charged with possessing between four and 200 grams of a penalty-group-one controlled substance, a second-degree felony. He pleaded guilty and received ten years of deferred-adjudication community supervision.
The State later moved to adjudicate Rossum’s guilt, alleging that he failed to pay restitution as required and failed to complete 12 months of intensive supervision probation. At the revocation hearing, Rossum signed a stipulation of evidence and pleaded true to the alleged violations. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief stating that her review disclosed no genuinely arguable appellate issues and moved to withdraw. Counsel informed Rossum of his right to review the record and submit a pro se response, but the court received neither a response nor a request for additional time.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire appellate record as required under Anders v. California. The court agreed with appellate counsel that the appeal was wholly frivolous and that no arguable issue supported an appeal.
Because its Anders review revealed no issue of arguable merit, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It also granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and stated that no substitute counsel would be appointed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the entire record for arguable grounds for appeal.
- The court found Rossum’s appeal wholly frivolous and affirmed the judgment without identifying or deciding a separate merits challenge to the revocation findings.
- The court granted appointed appellate counsel permission to withdraw after completing its independent review.
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 must provide a professional evaluation of the record and notify the defendant of the right to review the record and respond.
The decision rests on the appellate court’s independent Anders review and its conclusion that no arguable issue existed—not on a separately developed appellate sufficiency analysis of the alleged community-supervision violations.