Richard Kerns v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00036-CR

RICHARD KERNS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24-0321X

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Richard Boyd Kerns pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one, namely cocaine, between four grams or more but less than 200 grams, a second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (Supp.). The trial court placed Kerns on deferred adjudication community supervision for four years. Later, the State alleged that Kerns violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision in a number of ways. Kerns pled true to some of the allegations and not true to others, and, after a contested hearing, the trial court found all allegations true and revoked Kerns’s community supervision. The trial court adjudicated Kerns guilty of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. Kerns appeals.

Kerns’s appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw as Kerns’s counsel on appeal, stating that she fully examined the record and reviewed the relevant law, but she found no meritorious issues for appeal. Kerns’s appellate counsel also filed a brief in support of her motion to withdraw (the Anders1 brief). In the Anders brief, appellate counsel set out the procedural history of the case and provided a review of Kerns’s pleas of true to the State’s allegations, the effectiveness of trial counsel, and the legality of the sentence imposed, with citations to the record and applicable authority. Appellate counsel concluded there was no non- frivolous argument to be raised with respect to any of these issues.

Within the Anders brief, appellate counsel stated that she sent a letter to Kerns providing him with a copy of the brief, informing him of his rights to review the record and file a brief or

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

3

response on his own behalf, informing him of his right to appeal, and explaining the meaning and effect of an Anders brief. In her motion to withdraw, appellate counsel stated that she has delivered a copy of the motion to Kerns and informed him of his right to respond or object to the motion. Appellate counsel also filed a separate letter to Kerns with this Court indicating that she sent him a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and that she was unable to find substantive appealable error. Appellate counsel’s letter also informed Kerns of his right to review the record and provided him with a pro se request for access to the appellate record and the mailing address of this Court for the purpose of obtaining a copy of the record. By letter dated June 4, 2026, this Court informed Kerns that his pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before June 19. We received neither a pro se motion for access to the appellate record from Kerns nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

On July 13, 2026, we informed Kerns that his pro se brief was due on or before August 3.

By that same letter, we informed Kerns that this matter would be submitted on August 3. We did not receive a pro se brief from Kerns nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a brief.

Appellate counsel’s actions comply with an appointed counsel’s responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw in accordance with Kelly v. State. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellate counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal and meets the requirements of Anders. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 743–44; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20.

4

After our independent review of the entire appellate record, we have independently determined “that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal.” Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318 n.16. In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 3, 2026 Date Decided: August 17, 2026

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case presents no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, 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, Appellant 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.