In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-26-00008-CR
RYAN ANDREW BUDZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 8th District Court
Hopkins County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2430355
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ryan Andrew Budz pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen
years old, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ deferred adjudication community
supervision. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Supp.). After pleading true to the
allegations on the motion to adjudicate and a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudicated
Budz guilty and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Budz appeals.
Budz’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that the appeal is without merit and that no reversible error appears in the
record. We have conducted an independent review of the entire record and the Anders brief. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Budz’s trial counsel has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief outlines the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence presented during the trial court proceedings.
Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are
no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders. Anders,
386 U.S. at 743–44; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Counsel
also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
In the motion to withdraw, counsel stated that she sent a letter to Budz explaining the
importance of the Anders brief and how Budz may pursue issues moving forward, a copy of the
brief, and her motion to withdraw. Also, in her motion to withdraw, counsel stated that she
provided Budz with a pro se form for access to the appellate record lacking only his signature.
2
In addition, counsel filed a copy of her letter to Budz as part of our record. Those actions
comply with an appointed counsel’s responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to
withdraw in accordance with Kelly. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20.
By letter dated May 13, 2026, this Court informed Budz that his pro se response was due
on or before June 3, 2026. We received neither a pro se response from Budz nor a motion
requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In the Anders context, once we determine that no reversible error exists, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
Jeff Rambin
Justice
Date Submitted: June 3, 2026
Date Decided: June 29, 2026
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3