Autumus Dewayne Mitchell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 11, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00302-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00302-CR __________________

AUTUMUS DEWAYNE MITCHELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A190697-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Autumus Dewayne Mitchell (“Appellant” or

“Mitchell”) for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in

an amount greater than four grams but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Appellant waived his right to a jury and pleaded “not

guilty.” After a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him

to seven years of confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

1 On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, 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 Mitchell to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Mitchell.

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, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. 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 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

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

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on April 25, 2022 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2022 Do Not Publish

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