Court Opinion

ID: 9449231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:05.987056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.641144
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                 Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                            __________________

                           NO. 09-22-00003-CR
                            __________________

                XAVIER RASHARD LACY, Appellant

                                     V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 356th District Court
                      Hardin County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 25202
__________________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Xavier Rashard Lacy appeals his conviction for robbery, a second-

degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed

an attorney to represent Lacy in his appeal. The attorney discharged his

responsibilities to Lacy by filing an Anders brief. 2

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2), (b).
     2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

                                      1
        In the brief, Lacy’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Lacy’s appeal.3 The brief the attorney

filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Lacy’s

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

issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Lacy’s attorney also

represented that he sent Lacy a copy of the brief and the record. When

the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Lacy,

by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or

before July 17, 2022. Lacy, 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 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable

grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. 6

        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).
           Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
        6See

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
                                      2
For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal.7

     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.

for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
      7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Lacy may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                    3