1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-18-00468-CR

 NO. 09-18-00469-CR

__________________

JAMES MICHAEL LILLIE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. CR32660, CR32661

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In March 2018, James Michael Lillie pleaded guilty to the crimes of Assault 

Family Violence – Occlusion and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and 

he was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of four years. See Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. §§ 22.01(b)(2)(B), 22.02(a)(2) (West 2019). In October 2018, the State 

filed a motion to revoke Lillie’s unadjudicated community supervision, based on 

new allegations that Lillie committed the crimes of Assault Family Violence and 
2

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon against G.H.1 while on probation. The 

State also alleged that (1) Lillie failed to report to his supervision officer in July and 

August of 2018, (2) failed to pay supervision fees in whole or part for the months of

April, May, June, July, August, and September 2018, (3) failed to complete 300 

hours of community service, and (4) failed to attend a Batterer’s Intervention 

Program. Lillie pleaded true to one allegation that he failed to report to his 

supervision officer as required by his probation. 

After a bench trial, the trial court found Lillie violated the terms and 

conditions of his probation, including Lillie’s plea of true to one allegation in the 

State’s motion, and adjudicated James Michael Lillie guilty of Assault Family 

Violence – Occlusion and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The trial 

court sentenced Lillie to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division for 10 years and 16 years respectively, ordering Lillie’s

sentences to run concurrently in both cases. Lillie timely appealed.

Lillie’s appellate counsel presented a professional evaluation of the record 

concluding there were no meritorious issues for appeal. See Anders v. California, 

 1 To protect the privacy of the victim, we identify her by her initials. See Tex. 

Const. art. I, § 30(a)(1) (granting victims of crime “the right to be treated with 

fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal 

justice process”).
3

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978). When we address an Anders brief as an appellate court, we have the 

option to determine: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

explaining that we reviewed the record and find no reversible error; or (2) that 

arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new 

counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted). 

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this matter. From our 

review of the record, we conclude no arguable issues exist to support an appeal, and 

there is no reversible error. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment 

of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Given our conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to 

support Lillie’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

 2 Lillie may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

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

Submitted on June 21, 2019

Opinion Delivered June 26, 2019

Do Not Publish

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