Court Opinion

ID: 4041766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 22:53:48.674225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:47.294342
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________

                             NO. 09-14-00301-CR
                            ____________________

                  JOSEPH BERNARD COOPER, Appellant

                                       V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
___________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 23233
___________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Joseph Bernard Cooper of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon and assault causing bodily injury. The trial court found that Cooper had

two prior felony convictions and sentenced Cooper to seventy-five years in prison

for aggravated assault and six months in county jail for misdemeanor assault, to

run concurrently. Cooper’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes Cooper’s appeal is frivolous.

                                        1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Cooper filed a pro se brief in response.

      The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the

merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may determine that: (1)

“the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed

the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “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 determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We

have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we

agree that no arguable issues support the appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

      AFFIRMED.
                                             ______________________________
                                                    STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice
Submitted on July 21, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 12, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
      1
       Cooper may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2