Justin Augustus Stephens v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 12, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00077-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00077-CR __________________

JUSTIN AUGUSTUS STEPHENS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-07-07969-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Justin Augustus Stephens guilty of evading arrest or detention

with a previous conviction and assessed Stephens’s punishment at two years of

confinement in state jail. Stephens’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that

presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes 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).

1 On September 7, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Stephens to file a

pro se brief. Stephens filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has

held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se

response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather,

an appellate court may 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 have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on December 21, 2021 Opinion Delivered January 12, 2022 Do Not Publish

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

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