1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00191-CR

NO. 09-19-00192-CR

__________________

AUSTIN BLAKE CATES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 159th District Court

Angelina County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 2018-0698; 2018-0700

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State indicted Austin Blake Cates for crimes resulting from three separate 

criminal transactions: Burglary of a Habitation, Robbery, and Possession of a

Controlled Substance. 1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02(a),(d), 29.02. On March 

11, 2019, Cates pled no contest to the charge of Burglary of Habitation and guilty to

 1 Cates does not appeal his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance. 
2

the charge of Robbery without the benefit of a plea agreement.

2 At the hearing, the 

trial court admonished Cates that he had a right to a jury trial and that by pleading 

guilty to the charges, he was waiving his right to appeal his guilty convictions. Cates 

also signed written plea admonishments that were admitted into evidence. 

On April 25, 2019, after conducting a bench hearing as to punishment, the 

trial court sentenced Cates to serve 15 years of incarceration in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for Burglary of Habitation, 

and 18 years of incarceration for Robbery. The trial court also ordered that the 

sentences run concurrently. The trial court certified that this was not a plea-bargain 

case as to punishment and that Cates had the right of appeal. Cates timely filed 

notices of appeal in each of the two cases.

The attorney appointed to represent Cates in his appeal filed an Anders brief 

which asserted that the attorney diligently reviewed the record and found no 

meritorious claims on which to appeal Cates’s sentences and that any appeal is 

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 810–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel served Cates with 

a copy of the Anders brief filed on his behalf. This Court notified Cates of his right 

 2 The trial court combined all of Cates’s cases at his plea hearing and later heard 

evidence regarding punishment for all cases in one hearing. 
3

to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not 

receive a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that 

this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that 

arguably might support an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (stating that the reviewing court must determine whether arguable 

grounds for review exist). The Court concludes it is unnecessary for us to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf. id. As no arguable grounds 

exist to support the appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.3

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on December 16, 2019

Opinion Delivered January 22, 2020

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

 3 Cates may challenge our opinion in this case by filing a petition for discretionary 

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.