Kyle Stephan Antoine v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 27, 2015
• Docket: 09-14-00299-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-14-00299-CR ___________________

KYLE STEPHAN ANTOINE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR30348 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Kyle Stephan Antoine guilty of burglary of a

habitation with intent to commit sexual assault and assessed punishment at ninety-

nine years imprisonment with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s

Institutional Division. Antoine filed a timely notice of appeal.

Antoine’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes

1 there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided

Antoine with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for Antoine to

file a pro se brief. Antoine filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.

The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders

briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed

the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine 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. (citations omitted).

We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record, and we agree with Antoine’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues

support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment

of new counsel to re-brief Antoine’s appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

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

2 _____________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on April 13, 2015 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2015 Do Not Publish

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