Court Opinion

ID: 8483349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-11 08:09:57.019401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:45.478488
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00200-CR
                               __________________

                         DYLAN PAUL TICE, Appellant

                                          V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 20-34,902
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an open plea, appellant Dylan Paul Tice pleaded guilty to the offense of

violation of a protective order with previous convictions, a third-degree felony. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.07(g)(2). After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial

court found Tice guilty of the offense of violation of a protective order with previous

convictions and assessed Tice’s punishment at six years of confinement.

      Tice’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). On July 27, 2022, we granted an extension of time for Tice to file

a pro se brief. We received no response from Tice.

       We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with

counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744. 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 October 28, 2022
Opinion Delivered November 9, 2022
Do Not Publish

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

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