Johnnie Alexander Riles III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: April 2, 2026
• Docket: 01-23-00795-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 2, 2026.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00795-CR ——————————— JOHNNIE ALEXANDER RILES III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1746354

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Johnnie Alexander Riles III guilty of the second-

degree felony offense of indecency with a child by contact and assessed Riles’

punishment at confinement for ten years and a $10,000 fine and recommended that

Riles be placed on community supervision. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 12.33, 21.11(a)(1), (d). Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the trial court suspended the

imposition of Riles’ sentence and placed Riles on community supervision for ten

years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.055. Riles timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Riles’ appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along with

an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal

is without merit and is frivolous. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In her

brief, counsel states that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to

advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153,

155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the

Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and

supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Riles’ counsel has informed the Court that she mailed a copy of the Anders

brief, her motion to withdraw, and the appellate record to Riles and informed him of

his right to access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.1 Riles filed a response to his counsel’s Anders brief and the State filed a

waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,

193 S.W.3d at 155. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that

there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines,

after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner

v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.2 TEX. R. APP. P. 423.2(a). Court-appointed counsel BreAnna Schwartz

must immediately send Riles the notice required under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

1 This Court also notified Riles at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 2 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Riles of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Johnson.

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