Court Opinion

ID: 9401846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 14:09:18.674098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.654941
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-22-00152-CR

       BOBBY CHARLES RINGWALD, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 6th District Court
                Lamar County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 28307

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

           Bobby Charles Ringwald pled guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated, third or

more, with a habitual offender enhancement.1 Following a bench trial on punishment, the trial

court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment. Ringwald appeals.

           Ringwald’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and

found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the

procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial

court proceedings.          Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the

requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw

as counsel in this appeal.

           On March 6, 2023, counsel mailed to Ringwald copies of the brief, the appellate record,

and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Ringwald of his rights to review the record and

to file a pro se response. On May 22, Ringwald filed his pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief.

           We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.       We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

1
    TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b) (Supp.), § 12.42.
                                                        2
supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

                                                       Scott E. Stevens
                                                       Chief Justice

Date Submitted:            June 12, 2023
Date Decided:              June 14, 2023

Do Not Publish

2
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3