Norman Edward Raines v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00156-CR
NORMAN EDWARD RAINES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-1413-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Norman Raines appeals from seven convictions: three for aggravated sexual
assault of a child, two for indecency with a child, and two for sexual assault. TEX. PEN.
CODE ANN. §§ 21.11, 22.011, 22.021 (West 2011). Raines was sentenced to forty years in
prison on the three aggravated sexual assault convictions and twenty years in prison on
the other four convictions. Each conviction is to be served concurrently.
Raines’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Raines was informed of
his right to submit a brief or other response on his own behalf but did not submit one.
Counsel asserts in his Anders brief that he has thoroughly and conscientiously
reviewed the complete reporter’s record and clerk’s record in search for potentially
meritorious issues on appeal and, after due diligence, found that no non-frivolous
issues exist. Counsel specifically discusses the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the convictions. Counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on
appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and
we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
"wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436.
An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.
After reviewing counsel’s brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
Raines v. State Page 2
Ohio App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Should Raines wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or
the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was
overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011).
Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's request to withdraw from representation of Raines is granted, and
counsel is permitted to withdraw from representing Raines. Additionally, counsel must
send Raines a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for
discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Raines v. State Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 2, 2014
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Raines v. State Page 4