Court Opinion

ID: 3072105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:43:18.732679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:41.578678
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________

                             NO. 09-13-00208-CR
                             _________________

                JOSE MIGUEL PONCE-GARCIA, Appellant

                                       V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
                       Liberty County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. CR29984
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jose Miguel Ponce-Garcia pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on

a family member with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 22.02(b)(1) (West 2011). A jury sentenced Ponce-Garcia to fifty years’

imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court

sentenced Ponce-Garcia in accordance with the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

      Ponce-Garcia’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

                                       1
1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and

concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel

provided Ponce-Garcia with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time

for Ponce-Garcia to file a pro se brief. Ponce-Garcia filed a pro se brief raising a

number of issues on appeal.

      The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders

briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed

the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] 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. (citations omitted).

      We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record, and we agree with Ponce-Garcia’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues

support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment

of new counsel to re-brief Ponce-Garcia’s appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v.

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

judgment.1

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

                                           ______________________________
                                                   CHARLES KREGER
                                                         Justice

Submitted on March 19, 2014
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014
Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.

                                       3