O pinion filed May 27 , 201 6



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______ 

### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 1 6 5

- C R

_____ _ _____ 

### RONNIE DALE WALKER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 104 th District Court

Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 19306B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N After a bench trial, t he trial court convicted Ronnie D ale Walker of the offense
of continuous sexual a buse of a child and assessed his punishment at confinement
for life . We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has conclude d that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided A ppellant with a copy of the brief , a copy2

of the motion to withdraw, a copy of the appellate record, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record

. Counsel also advised A ppellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief

. 1 We note that Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s brief

. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determi ne (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appoin ted to brief the issues. Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d at 409 ; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record. No pretrial motions were filed, and only four trial objections went against Appellant. None of those is an arguable ground for appeal. Moreover, Appellant admitted in a videotaped statement and in his testimony at trial that he had had inappropriate se xual relations with the victim.
A ppellant disputed the victim’s allegation that he began having sexual intercourse
with her when she was ten years old ; Appellant testified that t he victim was thirteen years old when the sexual contact began and that it only ha ppened fifteen to twenty

1 This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief

.3

time s. Pursuant to the statute under which Appellant was convicted, the victim need only be younger than fourteen years of age when the sexual abuse occurred. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 21.02(b) (West Supp. 2015 ). We note additionally that the
effectiveness of trial counsel was not challenged in a motion for new trial and that the record on direct appeal is undeveloped as to any failings of trial counsel

. See Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

. Based upon our independent review of the record, we agree with appellate counsel that the appeal is
without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise A ppellant that he may file a petition for disc retionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises A ppellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68. The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIA M

May 27 , 2016 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.