Full Opinion

Opinion filed September 24, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-25-00243-CR __________ DAVID LEE RAINBOLT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from 104th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23134-B MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, David Lee Rainbolt, was charged with driving while intoxicated, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2025). Appellant entered an open plea of guilty. After the completion of a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) and a hearing on punishment, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at seven years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this court, supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no meritorious or arguable grounds to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to (1) object to counsel’s motion, (2) review the record, (3) file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief, and (4) file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 68. As such, court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. at 742– 44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record and the brief, and we conclude that this appeal is without merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we agree with counsel that no meritorious or arguable grounds for appeal exist.1 See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“[C]ourts of appeals must decide whether the Anders appeal and subsequent pro se brief raise any meritorious ‘arguable grounds’ for review.”). 1 We note that Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE September 24, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 3