Tony Charles Patterson v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed August 29, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00197-CR
__________

TONY CHARLES PATTERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 15914-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Tony Charles Patterson, was convicted by a jury of continuous
sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b)
(West Supp. 2024). The jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty-
five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this
court. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(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 a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. Counsel
also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to
counsel’s brief, and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68. As such, court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders, 386 U.S. 738; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014); Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409–12; and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.1
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and likewise conclude that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist. 2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 &
n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). During the guilt/innocence phase of Appellant’s jury
trial, the State presented the testimony of five witnesses. The victim, Appellant’s
daughter, told the jury with sufficient detail how Appellant sexually assaulted her

1
Tonya Cambridge attempted to file a response to counsel’s Anders brief on Appellant’s behalf,
purporting to act as his “Power of Attorney, Attorney In Fact.” Prior to the filing deadline, we notified
Appellant and Cambridge that only members of the state bar may practice law in Texas. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 81.102 (West 2023); In re Flores, No. 11-24-00173-CR, 2024 WL 3056108, at *2–3 (Tex.
App.—Eastland June 20, 2024, orig. proceeding) (referring to and attaching a per curiam order issued on
April 9, 2024 in cause number 11-24-00079-CR). In that regard, a power of attorney is not an authorization
to practice law or to act as an attorney on another’s behalf. See GOV’T § 81.102; Flores, 2024 WL 3056108,
at *2–3.
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2
when she was nine years old, and again when she was eleven. After the State
rested its case-in-chief, Appellant called nine witnesses, then Appellant testified.
According to Appellant, the victim fabricated the allegations at her mother’s behest
so that the mother—Appellant’s ex-wife—could steal his assets and “live happily
ever after on property that [he] paid for.” The jury found Appellant guilty and
assessed a thirty-five-year term of imprisonment, which is within the punishment
range authorized by law. See PENAL § 21.02(h); Ex parte Chavez, 213 S.W.3d 320,
323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“[T]he sentencer’s discretion to impose any
punishment within the prescribed range . . . [is] essentially ‘unfettered.’” (quoting
Miller-El v. State, 782 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). Having found no
non-frivolous issues elsewhere in the record, we agree that this appeal is without
merit.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

August 29, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3