James Russell Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00378-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00378-CR __________________

JAMES RUSSELL SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-41200 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant James Russell Smith (“Appellant” or

“Smith”) for robbery, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02.

The indictment included four enhancement paragraphs, alleging Smith had four

previous felony convictions. Smith pleaded “not guilty” to the offense and the jury

found Smith guilty. During the punishment phase of the trial, Smith pleaded “not

true” to the four enhancements. After hearing evidence, the jury found Smith was

previously convicted of at least one sequential felony offense as alleged in the

1 indictment and assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement. The trial

court sentenced Smith in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Smith timely appealed.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record 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 Smith to file a pro se brief, and Smith filed a pro se

brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits

of the issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may after

reviewing the record determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an

opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]”

or (2) “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. We do not address the

merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have

determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

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

2 record, counsel’s brief, and Smith’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that

would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“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).

However, we note that in the section of the judgment entitled “1st Enhancement

Paragraph:” the judgment incorrectly recites that Smith “PLEADED TRUE[.]” This

Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to correct clerical errors.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993). We delete this language and substitute “PLEADED NOT TRUE” in its place.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on October 8, 2025 Opinion Delivered October 15, 2025 Do Not Publish

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

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