Court Opinion

ID: 9449234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:08.260888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.509108
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                          NO. 09-22-00073-CR
                          __________________

              MAC ANTHONY CORRALES, Appellant

                                    V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
                     Liberty County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. CR34322
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Mac Anthony Corrales appeals his conviction for online solicitation

of a minor, a second-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the

trial court appointed an attorney to represent Corrales for the appeal.

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021(f).

                                     1
The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Corrales by filing an

Anders brief. 2

        In the brief, Corrales’s attorney represents he was unable to find

any meritorious issues to present in the appeal. 3 The brief the attorney

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

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

arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Corrales’s

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

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

Appeals notified Corrales, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or

response with the Court on or before September 20, 2022. Corrales,

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

        2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
        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).
                                      2
reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable

grounds to support the appeal. 6 Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.7

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

attorney to re-brief the appeal. 8

     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 Johnson, JJ.

     6See   Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
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
for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
      7Id. at 826.
      8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

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