Court Opinion

ID: 9385536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 07:24:21.613162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.585274
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                               NO. 09-22-00090-CR
                              ________________

                      JEFFREY SCOTT ROSS, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 21-04-04829-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Jeffrey Scott Ross appeals his conviction for possession with the intent to

deliver/manufacture a controlled substance, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 481.112(f). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed

an attorney to represent Ross in his appeal. The attorney discharged his

responsibilities to Ross by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967). In the brief, Ross’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Ross’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

                                          1
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional

evaluation of the record. In the brief, Ross’s attorney explains why, under the record

in Ross’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Id.

Ross’s attorney also represented that he sent Ross a copy of the brief and the record.

When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Ross, by

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

December 12, 2022. Ross, 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 the appeal. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). After reviewing the

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no

arguable grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. 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.”).

For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-

brief the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

                                          2
Ross may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                          JAY WRIGHT
                                                             Justice

Submitted on January 26, 2023
Opinion Delivered April 5, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

                                         3