Court Opinion

ID: 9410425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 07:09:15.019791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.673359
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                 Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                          NO. 09-21-00239-CR
                           __________________

                  JAMES EDWARD HAAS, Appellant

                                   V.

                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                     Orange County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. A180268-R
__________________________________________________________________

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

    James Edward Haas appeals his conviction for possession of a

controlled substance, a second-degree felony.1 After filing the notice of

appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Haas in his

     1See   Tex. Health and Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d).
                                    1
appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Haas by filing an

Anders brief. 2

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

reversible errors to be addressed in Haas’s appeal.3 The brief the attorney

filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Haas’s

attorney explains why, under the record in Haas’s case, no arguable

issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Haas’s attorney also

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

the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Haas,

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

before May 3, 2022. Haas, 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.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

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

        2See   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
        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
grounds to support the appeal.6 Thus, 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 March 7, 2023
Opinion Delivered July 19, 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).

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