Trent Carson Steinbart v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00107-CR

Trent Carson Steinbart,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

On appeal from the

249th District Court of Johnson County, Texas Judge Tiffany Strother, presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-F202300537

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Trent Carson Steinbart pleaded guilty to the trial court without a punishment recommendation from the State to four counts of possession with the intent to promote child pornography and three counts of promotion of child pornography. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed Steinbart’s punishment at twenty years’ confinement on each count of possession with the intent to promote child pornography and the first count of promotion of child pornography and at ten years’ confinement on the second and third counts of promotion of child pornography. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 and 12.34. The trial court ordered that each twenty-year sentence run consecutively and that the ten- year sentences run concurrently with the twenty-year sentence assessed in count one. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Steinbart’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her 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, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–

Steinbart v. State Page 2 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, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 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, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

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

MATT JOHNSON

Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 16, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Motion granted Do Not Publish CR25

Steinbart v. State Page 3