Court Opinion

ID: 9893458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 08:11:52.814332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:06.535799
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                              NO. 09-23-00074-CR
                              ________________

               SHERMAN DEWAYNE GRIFFIN III, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                   On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 22-02-01601-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Sherman Griffin was convicted of murder, a first-degree felony. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). The trial court sentenced Griffin to 75 years in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

      Griffin’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

                                         1
(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Griffin

of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but we

received no response from him. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we

need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may

determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining

that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “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 have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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). Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.
                                                            JAY WRIGHT
                                                               Justice
Submitted on October 13, 2023
Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

      1
         Griffin may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2