Dustin Eric Rubio v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00220-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00220-CR

Dustin Eric Rubio, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas Judge Don Chrestman, presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-F202400566

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dustin Eric Rubio pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of

continuous sexual abuse of a child, four counts of sexual assault of a child—

prohibited sexual conduct, one count of aggravated sexual assault, one count

of tampering with a witness, three counts of prohibited sexual conduct—

stepchild, and one count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence

with the intent to impair. After a bench trial on punishment, the trial court sentenced Rubio to 99 years in counts one through six, to run consecutively, 99

years in count seven, to run concurrently, and 10 years in counts eight through

eleven, to run concurrently. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Rubio’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief

in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate

record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's

brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance

with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has

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 Kelly

v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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." Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d

300 (1988); 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). After a review of the entire record in this

Rubio v. State Page 2 appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Rubio is granted.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 9, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish CRPM

Rubio v. State Page 3