Lacie Renee Jarvis v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00143-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00143-CR __________________

LACIE RENEE JARVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-06-07656-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lacie Renee Jarvis appeals her conviction for injury to a child, a

first-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court

appointed an attorney to represent Jarvis in her appeal. The attorney

discharged his responsibilities to Jarvis by filing an Anders brief.2

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(b)(1). 2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

1 In the brief, Jarvis’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Jarvis’s appeal. 3 The brief the

attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the

brief, Jarvis’s attorney explains why, under the record in Jarvis’s case,

no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Jarvis’s

attorney also represented that he sent Jarvis a copy of the brief and the

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

notified Jarvis, by letter, that she could file a pro se brief or response with

the Court on or before July 19, 2022. Jarvis, however, failed to respond.

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 the appeal.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable

grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. 6

3See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 4Id. 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 2 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal.7

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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).

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