1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00110-CR 

__________________

RICHARD CRYER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court

Tyler County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13,605

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Richard Cryer, represented by court-appointed counsel, was 

convicted in a trial to a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, 

a second-degree felony.1 The jury assessed punishment and sentenced 

him to prison for twenty years. The attorney appointed to represent 

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2).
2

Cryer filed a notice of appeal, and then filed an Anders brief in his 

appeal.2

In the brief, Cryer’s attorney represents there are no arguable 

reversible errors to be addressed in Cryer’s appeal.3 The brief filed by the 

attorney contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, 

Cryer’s attorney explains why, under the record in Cryer’s case, no 

arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Cryer’s 

attorney also represented that he sent Cryer a copy of the brief and the 

record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals 

notified Cryer, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with 

the Court on or before January 9, 2023. Cryer, however, failed to respond.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to 

independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney 

assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that 

would support the appeal.5 In this appeal, the record does not show that 

2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

3See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

4Id. 5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 

744).
3

Cryer’s attorney filed a motion for new trial when the case was in the 

trial court, and it also does not show that Cryer’s attorney filed a motion 

to withdraw after he filed the notice of appeal. Because Cryer was 

represented by counsel when he was in the trial court and the record 

shows he didn’t file a motion for new trial, rebuttable presumption exists 

that requires this Court to assume that Cryer considered and rejected 

that option.6

After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the 

attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support this

appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.7 For that reason, we need 

not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the 

appeal.8

6Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906, 911 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) 

(discussing the rebuttable presumption that arises when the record 

shows no motion for new trial was filed). 7See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion 

that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record 

for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).

8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Cryer may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2023

Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023

Do Not Publish 

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton, and Wright JJ.