Court Opinion

ID: 2733498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-17 07:13:21.404629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:26.830493
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ________________

                             NO. 09-13-00408-CR
                              ________________

                    ERNEST JOE BILNOSKI, Appellant

                                       V.

                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 221st District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 13-07-07790 CR
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant Ernest Joe Bilnoski guilty of arson as a habitual

felony offender and assessed punishment at forty-five years of imprisonment.

Bilnoski’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

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

1978).

      Bilnoski filed a pro se brief in response. The 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, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

no reversible error”; or (2) “that 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 reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, 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 August 22, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 17, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
      1
        Bilnoski may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.