Kenneth Wiley v. The State of Texas Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00207-CR No. 10-15-00208-CR No. 10-15-00209-CR No. 10-15-00210-CR No. 10-15-00211-CR KENNETH WILEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court Nos. FO-14-22332, FO-14-22333, FO-14-22334, FO-14-22335 and FO-14-22336 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Kenneth Wiley made open pleas of guilty to five separate indictments, each alleging possession of child pornography. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to seven years in prison in each case, to be served consecutively. These appeals ensued. We will affirm. In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in each case Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw, stating that his review of the records yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders; they present a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Counsel has informed us that he has: (1) examined the records and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of each brief and motion to withdraw on Appellant; and (3) provided Appellant with a copy of the records and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant did not file a pro se response. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Wiley v. State Page 2 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Appellant’s attorney has moved to withdraw as counsel for Appellant in each case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgments to Appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review in each case.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 3, 2015 Do not publish [CRPM] New appellate counsel will not be appointed for Appellant. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. 1 Wiley v. State Page 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
