Dustin Eric Rubio v. the State of Texas
Docket 10-25-00220-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 10-25-00220-CR
Appeal from a conviction and sentencing after guilty pleas and a bench punishment trial in a Johnson County district court
Summary
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District of Texas reviewed Dustin Eric Rubio’s appeal after he pleaded guilty and was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and related counts. Rubio received lengthy prison terms totaling consecutive and concurrent sentences. His appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. After an independent review of the record, the court agreed the appeal lacked any nonfrivolous grounds, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The opinion explains the court performed the required frivolity review under Anders and related precedent.
Issues Decided
- Whether the appeal presented any nonfrivolous grounds for reversal after counsel filed an Anders brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- Whether appointed counsel complied with the duties required when seeking to withdraw under Anders and related Texas authority.
Court's Reasoning
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw after reviewing the record and concluding there were no arguable issues. The court conducted its independent review of the entire record, as required by Anders and Texas precedent, and found the appeal to be wholly frivolous because it lacked any basis in law or fact. Because no nonfrivolous issues were identified, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Penson v. Ohio488 U.S. 75 (1988)
- High v. State573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)
Parties
- Appellant
- Dustin Eric Rubio
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Don Chrestman
- Judge
- Lee Harris
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-09
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult new counsel about further review options
If Rubio wishes to pursue further post-conviction remedies, he should consult an attorney promptly to evaluate grounds for rehearing, state habeas relief, or federal habeas corpus where applicable.
- 2
Request a copy of the appellate record and opinion
Obtain the full record and this opinion to allow counsel to assess potential procedural, factual, or constitutional issues for post-conviction filings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court found Rubio’s appeal frivolous after reviewing the record and affirmed the trial court’s convictions and sentences.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Dustin Eric Rubio is affected because his convictions and sentences were upheld; the State’s convictions remain in force.
- Why was counsel allowed to withdraw?
- Appellate counsel followed the Anders process by reviewing the record, filing a brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues, and the court agreed, so counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.
- Can Rubio try to appeal further?
- The opinion does not state any remaining appellate remedy; Rubio may consult counsel about possible further appeals or post-conviction relief, but the court affirmed the judgment.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-25-00220-CR
Dustin Eric Rubio,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas
Judge Don Chrestman, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. DC-F202400566
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dustin Eric Rubio pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of
continuous sexual abuse of a child, four counts of sexual assault of a child—
prohibited sexual conduct, one count of aggravated sexual assault, one count
of tampering with a witness, three counts of prohibited sexual conduct—
stepchild, and one count of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence
with the intent to impair. After a bench trial on punishment, the trial court
sentenced Rubio to 99 years in counts one through six, to run consecutively, 99
years in count seven, to run concurrently, and 10 years in counts eight through
eleven, to run concurrently. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Rubio’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief
in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate
record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's
brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance
with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has
performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at
744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly
v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all
the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386
U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d
300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any
basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108
S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
Rubio v. State Page 2
appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Rubio is granted.
LEE HARRIS
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: April 9, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Motion granted
Do Not Publish
CRPM
Rubio v. State Page 3