Court Opinion

ID: 9449233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:07.511065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.518350
License: Public Domain

In The

                           Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                           __________________

                         NO. 09-22-00110-CR
                          __________________

                    RICHARD CRYER, Appellant

                                   V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

              On Appeal from the 1A District Court
                       Tyler County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 13,605
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Richard Cryer, represented by court-appointed counsel, was

convicted in a trial to a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,

a second-degree felony. 1 The jury assessed punishment and sentenced

him to prison for twenty years. The attorney appointed to represent

     1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2).

                                    1
Cryer filed a notice of appeal, and then filed an Anders brief in his

appeal. 2

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

reversible errors to be addressed in Cryer’s appeal. 3 The brief filed by the

attorney contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief,

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

arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Cryer’s

attorney also represented that he sent Cryer a copy of the brief and the

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

notified Cryer, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with

the Court on or before January 9, 2023. Cryer, 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 In this appeal, the record does not show that

        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
Cryer’s attorney filed a motion for new trial when the case was in the

trial court, and it also does not show that Cryer’s attorney filed a motion

to withdraw after he filed the notice of appeal. Because Cryer was

represented by counsel when he was in the trial court and the record

shows he didn’t file a motion for new trial, rebuttable presumption exists

that requires this Court to assume that Cryer considered and rejected

that option. 6

      After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the

attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support this

appeal. 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

      6Cooks v. State, 240 S.W.3d 906, 911 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(discussing the rebuttable presumption that arises when the record
shows no motion for new trial was filed).
      7See 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.”).
      8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Cryer may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                     3
     The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

     AFFIRMED.

                                               _________________________
                                                    HOLLIS HORTON
                                                          Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

                                   4