Ethan Ringo v. the State of Texas

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00180-CR

ETHAN RINGO, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-2232-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ethan Ringo pled true to seven violations alleged by the State in its motion to adjudicate his deferred adjudication community supervision on two counts of indecency with a child by contact. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11. The trial court adjudicated Ringo guilty on both counts and, after a punishment hearing, sentenced Ringo to 15 years in prison on each count and a fine of $1,000 on Count One only. See id. at § 12.33. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Ringo’s court-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 id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407-09 (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 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 judgments on Count One and Count Two.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Ringo is granted.

Ringo v. State Page 2

STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed; Motion granted Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Ringo v. State Page 3