Court Opinion

ID: 9943341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 08:14:20.006191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:49.278449
License: Public Domain

In The

                           Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                          __________________

                          NO. 09-23-00072-CR
                          __________________

              DONALD FRANK MCMATH, Appellant

                                    V.

                 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                     Orange County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. A220319-R
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Donald Frank McMath appeals his conviction for                 sexual

performance by a child, a first-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of

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

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25(c).

                                    1
appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to McMath by filing

an Anders brief. 2

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

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

attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the

brief, McMath’s attorney explains why, under the record in McMath’s

case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4

McMath’s attorney also stated that he sent McMath a copy of the brief

and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of

Appeals notified McMath, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or

response with the Court on or before November 7, 2023. McMath,

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

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

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 January 10, 2024
Opinion Delivered February 21, 2024
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).

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