Background
Callie Jean Lonsford was arrested twice during a roughly six-month period in 2019 and charged in each case with driving while intoxicated with two prior convictions, a third-degree felony. Under plea agreements, she pleaded guilty and received ten-year prison sentences, each probated for ten years.
Several years later, the State moved to revoke Lonsford’s community supervision in both cases based on the same alleged violations. The trial court heard the motions together. Lonsford pleaded true to all but one allegation, and the court found every allegation true, revoked supervision, and imposed concurrent ten-year prison terms. Her appointed appellate counsel filed Anders briefs asserting that neither appeal presented an arguable ground for reversal, and Lonsford filed no pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals independently examined the records and counsel’s briefs, as required when appointed counsel files an Anders brief. It concluded that nothing in either record would arguably support an appeal and affirmed both revocation judgments.
The court also determined that counsel’s briefs and notices to Lonsford satisfied the applicable Anders procedures. It granted counsel’s motions to withdraw and ordered counsel to send Lonsford the opinion and judgments and advise her of her right to seek discretionary review.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently review the full record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The court found no arguable appellate issue arising from either revocation proceeding or resulting ten-year sentence.
- The court affirmed both judgments, granted appointed counsel’s withdrawal motions, and preserved Lonsford’s ability to seek discretionary review without substitute appointed counsel.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the review required in Texas criminal appeals when appointed counsel concludes that an appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s assessment alone does not end the case; the appellate court must conduct its own examination of the proceedings before affirming.
It also underscores counsel’s continuing post-decision duties after withdrawal, including promptly providing the client with the opinion and judgments and explaining the right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review.