Background
David Lee Rainbolt was charged with driving while intoxicated as a third-degree felony. He entered an open guilty plea, leaving punishment to the trial court.
After reviewing a presentence investigation and conducting a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Rainbolt to seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. His appointed appellate counsel later moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief concluding that the record presented no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal. Counsel furnished Rainbolt with the required documents and advised him of his rights, but Rainbolt did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s Anders brief. It concluded that the appeal lacked merit and agreed with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appellate review existed.
The court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It also noted that Rainbolt retained the right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review under Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record for potentially meritorious or arguable issues.
- The court found that appointed counsel complied with the procedural requirements governing an Anders withdrawal.
- Finding no arguable appellate grounds, the court affirmed Rainbolt’s seven-year sentence and permitted counsel to withdraw.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the review required when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s assessment does not itself end the appeal; the appellate court must independently review the record before affirming the judgment and allowing counsel to withdraw.