Court Opinion

ID: 6103509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-14 08:12:53.465911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.735333
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-21-00077-CR
                              __________________

                 JUSTIN AUGUSTUS STEPHENS, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 20-07-07969-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       A jury found Justin Augustus Stephens guilty of evading arrest or detention

with a previous conviction and assessed Stephens’s punishment at two years of

confinement in state jail. Stephens’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that

presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

                                         1
      On September 7, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Stephens to file a

pro se brief. Stephens filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has

held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se

response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather,

an appellate court may determine: (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 reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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 December 21, 2021
Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022
Do Not Publish

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

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