Court Opinion

ID: 9963788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 08:14:24.494605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:59.697914
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                              NO. 09-22-00134-CR
                              ________________

                  PHILLIP JEROME SIMMONS, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                           Liberty County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. CR35130
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Appellant Phillip Jerome Simmons (“Appellant” or

“Simmons”) of murder, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c).

After a hearing on punishment, the jury found the two alleged enhancements for

prior felony convictions “true” and assessed punishment as life in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 12.42(d) (penalties for repeat or habitual

offenders).

                                         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 Simmons to file a pro se brief, and Simmons filed

a pro se brief in response.

      The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and a pro se brief, the appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that

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

the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine 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.” (citation omitted) Id. We do not address the

merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have

determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

      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, counsel’s brief, and Simmons’ pro se brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28

                                         2
(“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

      AFFIRMED.

                                                       JAY WRIGHT
                                                           Justice

Submitted on January 30, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 24, 2024
Do Not Publish

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

      1
         Simmons may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
                                        3