Court Opinion

ID: 9449232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:06.748698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.519435
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                            __________________

                          NO. 09-22-00318-CR
                           __________________

                     RONY SANCHEZ, Appellant

                                     V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

             On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                     Liberty County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. CR35036
__________________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Rony Sanchez appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, a first-

degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed

an attorney to represent Sanchez in the appeal. The attorney discharged

his responsibilities to Sanchez by filing an Anders brief. 2

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03.
     2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

                                     1
        In the brief, Sanchez’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Sanchez’s appeal.3 The brief contains

a professional evaluation of the record, and Sanchez’s attorney explains

why under the record in Sanchez’s case no arguable issues exist to

reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Sanchez’s attorney also represents

that he sent Sanchez a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief

was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Sanchez, by

letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or

before February 27, 2023. Sanchez, 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 his appeal.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree no arguable grounds

        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
exist to support Sanchez’s appeal. 6 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).

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