Christopher Thomas Kroenke v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00040-CR

CHRISTOPHER THOMAS KROENKE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 54633-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to an open plea, Christopher Thomas Kroenke pled guilty to indecency with a

child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11. After an

evidentiary hearing, the trial found Kroenke guilty and sentenced him to twelve years’

imprisonment. Kroenke appeals.

Kroenke’s counsel filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. In the brief, counsel sets out the

procedural history of the case and provides a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during

the trial court proceedings. Kroenke’s counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to

withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

In the motion to withdraw, counsel states that she sent a certified letter to Kroenke

explaining the importance of the Anders brief and how Kroenke may pursue issues moving

forward, a copy of the brief, and her motion to withdraw. Also in her motion, counsel states that

she provided Kroenke with a pro se form for access to the appellate record. Those actions

comply with an appointed counsel’s responsibilities when filing an Anders brief and a motion to

withdraw in accordance with Kelly v. State. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014).

On July 28, 2025, we informed Kroenke that his pro se brief was due on or before

August 18, 2025, and that the case would be submitted on August 18, as well. We received

neither a pro se response from Kroenke nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to

file such a response.

2
Counsel’s professional evaluation of the record demonstrates why there are no arguable

grounds to be raised on appeal and meets the requirements of Anders v. California. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–20. After our review of

the entire appellate record, we have independently determined that “there are no non-frivolous

grounds for appeal.” See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318 n.16.

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm

the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Jeff Rambin
Justice

Date Submitted: August 18, 2025
Date Decided: September 11, 2025

Do Not Publish

1
Since we agree that this case presents no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, 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