James Marshall Spillman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: May 20, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00295-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00295-CR ________________

JAMES MARSHALL SPILLMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-04-05393 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant James Marshall Spillman was charged with continuous sexual

abuse of a young child, a first-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). He

was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.

Spillman’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

1 filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified

Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing

so but we received no response from Appellant.

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

appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support the 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 of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on May 14, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.