Norman Edward Raines v. The State of TexasAppeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (memorandum opinion by chief justice gray)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00156-CR NORMAN EDWARD RAINES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-1413-C1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Norman Raines appeals from seven convictions: three for aggravated sexual assault of a child, two for indecency with a child, and two for sexual assault. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. ยงยง 21.11, 22.011, 22.021 (West 2011). Raines was sentenced to forty years in prison on the three aggravated sexual assault convictions and twenty years in prison on the other four convictions. Each conviction is to be served concurrently. Raines s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Raines was informed of his right to submit a brief or other response on his own behalf but did not submit one. Counsel asserts in his Anders brief that he has thoroughly and conscientiously reviewed the complete reporter s record and clerk s record in search for potentially meritorious issues on appeal and, after due diligence, found that no non-frivolous issues exist. Counsel specifically discusses the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. Counsel concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (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." See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 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). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436. An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. After reviewing counsel s brief and the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. Raines v. State Page 2 App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Should Raines wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas 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 the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. Counsel's request to withdraw from representation of Raines is granted, and counsel is permitted to withdraw from representing Raines. Additionally, counsel must send Raines a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Raines v. State Page 3 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 2, 2014 Do not publish [CRPM] Raines v. State Page 4

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.