Background
Ramona Llanez Delgadillo was indicted in separate cases for felony driving while intoxicated and tampering with evidence, both third-degree felonies. Each offense was enhanced by two prior felony convictions.
Following a consolidated trial, a jury convicted Delgadillo of both offenses and found the enhancement allegations true. It assessed life imprisonment for the felony DWI and 25 years’ imprisonment for evidence tampering. The trial court imposed those sentences and ordered them served concurrently.
Delgadillo’s appointed appellate counsel filed motions to withdraw accompanied by Anders briefs concluding that the records disclosed no meritorious or arguable appellate grounds. Counsel supplied Delgadillo with the required materials and advised her of her rights, but she did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs under the procedures required by Anders v. California and related Texas authority. It concluded that both appeals were without merit.
The court therefore granted appointed counsel’s motions to withdraw and affirmed both trial-court judgments. It noted that Delgadillo retained the right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court considering an Anders brief must independently review the record before determining that an appeal lacks merit.
- Appointed counsel satisfied the applicable procedural requirements by providing Delgadillo with the briefs, withdrawal motions, explanatory letter, and records and by advising her of her appellate rights.
- The court affirmed Delgadillo’s concurrent life and 25-year sentences after finding no meritorious issues in either appeal.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no nonfrivolous grounds. Counsel’s assessment does not end the inquiry; the appellate court must conduct its own review of the record.
The decision also confirms that affirmance following an Anders review does not eliminate the defendant’s right to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.