James Edward Haas v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 19, 2023
• Docket: 09-21-00239-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00239-CR __________________

JAMES EDWARD HAAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A180268-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Edward Haas appeals his conviction for possession of a

controlled substance, a second-degree felony.1 After filing the notice of

appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Haas in his

1See Tex. Health and Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). 1 appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Haas by filing an

Anders brief. 2

In the brief, Haas’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Haas’s appeal.3 The brief the attorney

filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Haas’s

attorney explains why, under the record in Haas’s case, no arguable

issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Haas’s attorney also

represented that he sent Haas a copy of the brief and the record. When

the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Haas,

by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or

before May 3, 2022. Haas, 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.6 Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. 7

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

attorney to re-brief the appeal.8

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on March 7, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 19, 2023 Do Not Publish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.”). 7Id. at 826. 8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

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