Danielle Kuimets v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 09-21-00042-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00042-CR __________________

DANIELLE KUIMETS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-28162 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Danielle Kuimets appeals her conviction for theft. 1 After filing the

notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent

Kuimets in her appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to

1Kuimets pleaded guilty to state-jail felony theft and pleaded true to prior convictions for theft and burglary. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.425, 31.03. 1 Kuimets by filing an Anders brief. 2 In the brief, Kuimets’s attorney

represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in

Kuimets’s appeal. 3 The brief the attorney filed contains a professional

evaluation of the record. In the brief, Kuimets’s attorney explains why,

under the record in Kuimets’s appeal, no arguable issues exist to reverse

the trial court’s judgment. 4 Kuimets’s attorney also represented that he

sent Kuimets a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed,

the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Kuimets, by letter, that

she could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before March

21, 2022. Kuimets, 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 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable

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 grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.6

For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal. 7

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on June 27, 2022 Opinion Delivered February 15, 2023 Do Not Publish

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

6See 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.”). 7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Kuimets may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3