Christopher Michael Vogler v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 8, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00328-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00313-CR NO. 09-21-00328-CR __________________

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL VOGLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. CR34650 and CR34651 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Christopher Michael Vogler was charged by indictment in cause

number CR34650 for the offense of failure to stop and render aid in an accident

resulting in serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B).

Vogler pleaded “not guilty,” and a jury found Vogler guilty and assessed punishment

at two years of confinement and recommended that the sentence be probated, and the

trial court accepted the jury’s verdict and punishment.

1 Vogler was also charged by indictment in cause number CR34651 with two

counts of aggravated assault stemming from the same accident. In count one, Vogler

was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and in count two, Vogler

was charged with aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(1), (2). Vogler pleaded “not guilty,” and a jury found Vogler

guilty on both counts. The trial court vacated the jury verdict on count one because

both counts involved the same victim and arose out of the same act. The jury assessed

punishment on count two at seven years of confinement and a fine of $7500. The trial

court accepted the jury’s verdict. Vogler appealed from both convictions.

On appeal, the court-appointed attorney for Vogler filed a brief in which the

attorney stated that he has reviewed the records and, based on his professional

evaluation of the records and applicable law, the appeals are frivolous and 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

Vogler to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Vogler.

We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record in both cases, and

we agree with Vogler’s counsel that no arguable grounds for reversal exist in either

case and the appeals are frivolous. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

2 appointment of new counsel to re-brief Vogler’s appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on May 26, 2022 Opinion Delivered June 8, 2022 Do Not Publish

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

1 Vogler may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3