James Dean Lucas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00037-CR

________________

JAMES DEAN LUCAS, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F21-38568

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a trial to the bench, Appellant James Dean Lucas was convicted of the second-degree felony offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 62.102. Lucas elected to have the trial court assess punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years of confinement.

2

Lucas’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 29, 2024, after Lucas’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Lucas to file a pro se brief. Lucas did not file a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a 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 record, and counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the

3

appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on January 3, 2025 Opinion Delivered February 26, 2025 Do Not Publish

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

1Lucas may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.