Christopher Robert Speakman v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00243-CR NO. 09-24-00244-CR __________________

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT SPEAKMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 23-08-12437-CR and 23-08-12438-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Christopher Robert Speakman (“Appellant”

or “Speakman”) for violation of a protective order in trial cause number 23-08-

12437-CR and for continuous violence against the family in trial cause number 23-

08-12438-CR.1 Speakman pleaded not guilty in both trial causes, but the jury found

1 These two cases were consolidated for trial along with a third charge in trial cause number 23-07-10280-CR for assault family violence by impeding breath or 1 Speakman guilty of both offenses. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court

assessed punishment at ten years of confinement in both trial causes, with the

sentences to run concurrently. Speakman timely filed his appeals.

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

reviewed the cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the records 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 Speakman to file pro se briefs, and we received no

response from Speakman.

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

of the record 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

records and counsel’s briefs in these cases, 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

circulation. The jury acquitted Speakman on the charge of assault family violence by impeding breath. 2 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. 2

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on May 13, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 21, 2025 Do Not Publish

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

2 Speakman may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3