Court Opinion

ID: 9449236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:09.741159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.640087
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                          NO. 09-22-00143-CR
                           __________________

                 LACIE RENEE JARVIS, Appellant

                                    V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 9th District Court
                   Montgomery County, Texas
                 Trial Cause No. 20-06-07656-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Lacie Renee Jarvis appeals her conviction for injury to a child, a

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

appointed an attorney to represent Jarvis in her appeal. The attorney

discharged his responsibilities to Jarvis by filing an Anders brief.2

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(b)(1).
     2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

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

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

attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the

brief, Jarvis’s attorney explains why, under the record in Jarvis’s case,

no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Jarvis’s

attorney also represented that he sent Jarvis a copy of the brief and the

record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals

notified Jarvis, by letter, that she could file a pro se brief or response with

the Court on or before July 19, 2022. Jarvis, 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 Horton, Johnson 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).

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