Court Opinion

ID: 9955727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 08:16:03.243343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.063449
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-23-00171-CR
                              NO. 09-23-00172-CR
                              NO. 09-23-00173-CR
                              NO. 09-23-00174-CR
                              __________________

                  JUSTIN GREGORY SONNIER, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                        Jefferson County, Texas
                Trial Cause Nos. F14-19349, F14-20535,
                       F16-24873 and F16-25352
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted Appellant Justin Gregory Sonnier in four cases for

delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, and the indictment included two

enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felony convictions.1 See Tex. Health &

      1
       Two indictments alleged offenses that occurred on two different dates in
2013 for the delivery of cocaine in an amount less than 1 gram. The other two
                                       1
Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(b), (c). Sonnier pleaded “guilty” in all four trial cause

numbers pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court signed an Order of

Deferred Adjudication as to guilt. In two trial cause numbers, the trial court placed

Sonnier on community supervision for eight years and assessed a $1,000 fine in each

cause. In the other two trial cause numbers, the trial court placed Sonnier on

community supervision for ten years and assessed a $500 fine in each cause.

      The State filed motions to revoke in all four trial cause numbers, alleging the

same six violations of the terms of Sonnier’s community supervision. At a hearing

on the motions, Sonnier pleaded “true” to four of the allegations pursuant to an open

plea agreement with the State to abandon two of the alleged violations. The trial

court found the evidence sufficient to find the allegations true, revoked Sonnier’s

community supervision, adjudicated Sonnier’s guilt, and sentenced Sonnier to

twenty years in prison in each trial cause number, with the sentences to run

concurrently. Sonnier appealed.

      On appeal, Sonnier’s court-appointed attorney filed briefs stating that he has

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

records and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal in any of the

four cases on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State,

indictments alleged offenses that occurred on a single date in 2015—one for the
delivery of cocaine in an amount less than 1 gram, and the other for the delivery of
cocaine in an amount greater than 1 gram but less than 4 grams.
                                         2
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for

Sonnier to file a pro se brief, and we received a pro se response from Sonnier.

      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. Or, 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.” 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 in all four cases, counsel’s briefs, and Sonnier’s pro se response,

and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal in any of the four

cases. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“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

                                         3
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgments. 2

      AFFIRMED.

                                                         LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on March 14, 2024
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024
Do Not Publish

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

      2
         Sonnier may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
                                        4