Opinion filed May 27, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00165-CR

___________

RONNIE DALE WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th 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, the trial court convicted Ronnie Dale Walker of the offense 

of continuous sexual abuse 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 concluded that the

appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy 
2

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 Appellant 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 determine (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 appointed 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 sexual relations with the victim. 

Appellant disputed the victim’s allegation that he began having sexual intercourse 

with her when she was ten years old; Appellant testified that the victim was thirteen

years old when the sexual contact began and that it only happened fifteen to twenty 

 

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

brief.
3

times. 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. TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 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 Appellant that he may 

file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. 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 petition for discretionary 

review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a 

petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

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

PER CURIAM

May 27, 2016

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.