NUMBER 13-22-00112-CR

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

KENNETH WARREN RIEDEL, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 25th District Court 

of Gonzales County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant Kenneth Warren Riedel was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of 

a child, a first-degree felony, and four counts of indecency with a child, second-degree 

felonies. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.021(a)(2)(B), 21.11(a)(1). He was sentenced 

to forty-five years’ imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault charge and twenty 

years’ imprisonment for each count of indecency with a child, to run cumulatively, totaling 
2

125 years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief 

stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel 

filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record 

yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, 

an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds 

none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set 

out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 

n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), 

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no 

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court 

in writing that he: (1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of 

his rights to file pro se responses, to review the record prior to filing those responses, and 
3

to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided 

appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record that only requires 

appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See 

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408–09. 

Appellant filed a pro se response. When appellate counsel files an Anders brief 

and the appellant independently files a pro se response, the court of appeals has two 

choices: 

[i]t may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or,

it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the 

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the 

issues.

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (internal citations 

omitted). We are “not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response.” Id. at 827. Rather, we must merely determine if there are any 

arguable grounds for appeal. Id. If we determine there are such arguable grounds, we 

must remand for appointment of new counsel. Id. Reviewing the merits raised in a pro se 

response would deprive an appellant of the meaningful assistance of counsel. Id.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, 

and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 
4

S.W.3d at 827–28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it 

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but 

found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five 

days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion 

and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for 

discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).

Delivered and filed on the

15th day of June, 2023.

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion 

for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. 

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.