Court Opinion

ID: 4665126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-05 07:16:57.656347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:05.019487
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-20-00030-CR
                               __________________

                      SOPHIA PEREZ HEATH, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 19-01-00864-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, in which the State agreed to cap her

punishment at twenty years of confinement, appellant Sophia Perez Heath pleaded

guilty to aggravated kidnapping. After conducting an evidentiary sentencing

hearing, the trial judge found Heath guilty and imposed a sentence of twenty years

of confinement.

      Heath’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

                                         1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Heath filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal

Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs

or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

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.” Id.

      We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We reviewed the

appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues

support the appeal. 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                     _________________________
                                                        W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                            Chief Justice

Submitted on February 3, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 3, 2021
Do Not Publish

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

      1
         Heath may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2