Court Opinion

ID: 9893459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 08:11:53.68529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:06.754219
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-22-00249-CR
                               NO. 09-22-00250-CR
                               __________________

                       PERCY ANDREPONT, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                        Jefferson County, Texas
                Trial Cause Nos. 20-35157 and 20-35158
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Percy Andrepont appeals his convictions in trial cause numbers 20-35157 and

20-35158 for indecency of a child. We affirm.

      In 2020, Andrepont was indicted in both cases for indecency of a child, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11. The indictments included

five enhancement paragraphs, alleging Andrepont had five previous felony

convictions. In each case, Andrepont pleaded “not guilty” to the offense and the jury

                                         1
found Andrepont guilty. During the punishment phase of trial, Andrepont pleaded

“true” to two of the enhancements and “not true” to the other three enhancements.

After hearing evidence, the trial court found four of the five enhancements “true,”

sentenced Andrepont to punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment in each case, and

ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.

      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed briefs stating that he has

reviewed the records in both cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the

records and applicable law, he concluded that the appeals lack merit and that there

are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of

time for Andrepont to file pro se briefs, and Andrepont filed no response.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief in both cases, and we have found nothing that

would arguably support an appeal in either case. See 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.”). Therefore, we find it

                                          2
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford

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

judgments. 1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                         LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on October 17, 2023
Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      1
        Andrepont may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
                                        3