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

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.0 2(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 th e 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, t he record does not show that

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

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

4 Id

. 5 Penson 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 bri ef, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support th is
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

6 Cooks 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)

. 7 See 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 reversib le error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1. ” ).

8 See 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 judgmen t 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.