Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Arthur Lee Kimbel v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 04-17-00782-CR
Judge: Beth Watkins
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: Steven A. Wadsworth
Defendant's Attorney: Kurtis S. Rudkin
Appellant Arthur Lee Kimbel was indicted for possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. The indictment
included two enhancement allegations. A jury found Kimbel guilty, Kimbel pled true to the
enhancement allegations, and the trial court sentenced Kimbel to life imprisonment and assessed
a $10,000.00 fine. Kimbel perfected this appeal.
Kimbelís court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he raises no arguable issues and concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the
- 2 -
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), and In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV, 2018 WL 6624409 (Tex. App.ĖĖSan
Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.) (en banc). Counsel provided proof Kimbel was given: (1) a copy
of the brief, (2) a copy of the motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion to allow him to request the
appellate record. Counsel also informed Kimbel of his right to file his own brief. Kimbel filed a
brief on his own behalf in which he alleges the trial court erred in: (1) admitting into evidence
photographs of text messages from Kimbelís cell phone regarding previous sales of
methamphetamine; and (2) denying his motion for mistrial, which was based on the assertion that
jurors saw Kimbel in a holding cell during the trial.
When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire
record and: (1) determine the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion stating there is no
reversible error, or (2) determine there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion
remanding the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826Ė27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se
only after any arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)).
We have carefully reviewed the record, counselís brief, Kimbelís brief, and the Stateís
brief. We find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See id. We
therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Kimbelís appointed counsel and affirm the trial
courtís judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.óSan Antonio 1997, no
pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.óSan Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Outcome: No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Kimbel wish to seek further review of this case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for