Background
Khari Rayshawn Eddington pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, and received ten years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State later petitioned to adjudicate guilt, alleging that he failed to report in May 2025, failed to report from June through October 2025, and failed to pay supervision fees.
Eddington pleaded not true to the allegations. Following a contested hearing, the trial court found them true, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. On appeal, appointed counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief stating that a review of the record and relevant law revealed no meritorious appellate issue. Eddington did not file a pro se brief or seek additional time to do so.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire appellate record and determined that no nonfrivolous ground for appeal existed. The court also concluded that appointed appellate counsel’s brief and communications with Eddington satisfied the requirements governing Anders proceedings, including informing Eddington of his rights to review the record, respond pro se, and seek discretionary review.
Because the appeal lacked merit, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Eddington guilty and imposing the ten-year sentence. It also granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and declined to appoint substitute counsel.
Key Takeaways
- An Anders brief must explain why the record presents no arguable appellate ground and must be accompanied by notice protecting the appellant’s rights to review the record and respond.
- The appellate court conducted its own review of the full record rather than relying solely on counsel’s assessment.
- Finding no nonfrivolous issue, the court affirmed the adjudication and sentence and permitted appointed counsel to withdraw.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the procedural safeguards that apply when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. Counsel must document compliance with the required notice and record-access procedures, and the appellate court must independently examine the record before affirming.
For deferred-adjudication appeals, the decision also shows that an adjudication and resulting sentence will remain intact when the record reveals no arguable basis for appellate relief.