Background
Ryan Andrew Budz pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years old in violation of Texas Penal Code § 22.021(a)(2)(B). The trial court initially sentenced him to ten years of deferred adjudication community supervision. However, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and impose punishment. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudicated Budz guilty and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
Budz appealed to the 6th Court of Appeals. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the appeal presented no merit and no reversible error appeared in the record. The court provided Budz opportunity to file a pro se response by June 3, 2026, but Budz did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court conducted an independent review of the entire record and appellate counsel’s Anders brief. The court determined that appellate counsel’s professional evaluation of the record met the requirements of Anders by demonstrating why no arguable grounds existed for appeal. Counsel had also properly notified Budz of his rights and provided him a pro se form to access the appellate record, fulfilling appointed counsel’s obligations under Anders and controlling precedent in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The court found no reversible error in the trial court proceedings. Under the Anders framework, once no reversible error is found, the appellate court must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from the case. The court noted that if Budz wishes to seek further review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney or file a pro se petition for discretionary review within thirty days.
Key Takeaways
- The conviction and fourteen-year sentence were affirmed with no reversible error identified in the appellate record.
- Appellate counsel properly complied with Anders procedures by providing written notice to the defendant and opportunity to respond pro se.
- Defendants seeking further review must pursue discretionary review through the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days of the appellate opinion or denial of a motion for rehearing.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces the procedural safeguards for frivolous appeals under Anders and confirms that trial courts may adjudicate guilt and impose increased sentences following an initial deferred adjudication, provided proper notice and hearing procedures are followed. The case illustrates the appellate court’s gatekeeping role in ensuring no meritorious issues are overlooked even when appointed counsel determines an appeal lacks merit.
For practitioners, the decision clarifies the specific steps counsel must take when filing an Anders brief—including notification to the defendant, provision of appellate record access, and explanation of further review options. The affirmance with no reversible error suggests the underlying conviction and sentencing proceeding complied with applicable criminal procedure requirements.