Kenneth Wayne McCreight v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00372-CR ____________________

KENNETH WAYNE MCCREIGHT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR33154 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Kenneth Wayne McCreight’s appellate counsel filed a brief in

which she contends no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision

reversing McCreight’s conviction for the unlawful possession of a firearm. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a) (West 2011). The trial court sentenced McCreight to

four years in prison.

1 The attorney appointed to represent McCreight in his appeal filed an Anders

brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel asserts she reviewed the trial

proceedings; she also discusses the evidence adduced at trial, points out the location

in the record where pertinent testimony can be found, discusses trial objections and

rulings, and concludes any further efforts to pursue an appeal would be frivolous.

See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After

reviewing McCreight’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow

McCreight to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by McCreight’s

counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that an appeal on the current record

would be frivolous. Therefore, it is not necessary we appoint new counsel to re-brief

McCreight’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines

there are arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion no arguable

grounds exist to support McCreight’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

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

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on June 6, 2018 Opinion Delivered October 3, 2018 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.