Court Opinion

ID: 6340475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-13 07:13:39.625163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:42.983222
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00302-CR
                               __________________

               AUTUMUS DEWAYNE MITCHELL, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. A190697-R
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted Appellant Autumus Dewayne Mitchell (“Appellant” or

“Mitchell”) for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in

an amount greater than four grams but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Appellant waived his right to a jury and pleaded “not

guilty.” After a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him

to seven years of confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

                                          1
      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted an extension of time for Mitchell to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Mitchell.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. See 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.”) 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

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

                                                _________________________
                                                    LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on April 25, 2022
Opinion Delivered May 11, 2022
Do Not Publish

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

                                       3