Justin Augustus Stephens v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00167-CR NO. 09-20-00168-CR __________________

JUSTIN AUGUSTUS STEPHENS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 19-12-17117-CR and 19-12-17119-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Justin Augustus Stephens appeals from two convictions, a

conviction for evading arrest or detention and a conviction for theft. 1 The

offenses were tried together in a trial to the bench after Stephens waived

1Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (evading arrest or detention); id. § 31.03 (theft). 1 his right to a trial by jury. After filing notices of appeal, the trial court

appointed an attorney to represent Stephens in his appeals. The attorney

discharged his responsibilities to Stephens by filing an Anders brief in

the appeals. 2

In the brief, Stephens’ attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Stephens’ appeals. 3 The brief the

attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record, and the

attorney explains why no arguable issues exist under the records in these

cases to support arguments that would allow this Court to reverse the

trial court’s judgments. 4 Stephens’ attorney also represented that he sent

Stephens a copy of the brief and the record in his appeals.

When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals

notified Stephens, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response

with the Court on or before October 18, 2021. Stephens responded by

alleging that his attorney was ineffective without offering any further

explanation. And in Stephens’ response, he asked the Court to appoint

another attorney to represent him in his appeals. After Stephens filed his

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.

2 response, he subsequently sent the Court some additional letters, but

nothing in them raises an arguable error that requires appointing

another attorney to re-brief Stephens’ appeals.

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 an argument to overturn the judgment at issue in the

appeal. 5 After reviewing the clerk’s records, the reporter’s records, and

the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds supporting

reversing the judgment in the appeals. Thus, it follows the appeals are

both frivolous. 6 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to

appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeals. 7

5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 6See

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.”). 7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Cassidy may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_____________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on January 4, 2022 Opinion Delivered August 10, 2022 Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.