Michael Duwon Session v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 28, 2018
• Docket: 09-16-00448-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00448-CR _________________

MICHAEL DUWON SESSION, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 16-10-11641-CR ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Duwon Session appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled

substance of more than four grams but less than 200 grams, a first degree felony,

enhanced because of his habitual offender status. See Tex. Health & Safety Code

Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2017); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West Supp.

2017). The trial court sentenced Session to serve a forty-year prison sentence. The

attorney appointed to represent Session in his appeal filed an Anders brief, which

1 asserted that the attorney reviewed the trial proceedings, discussed the evidence

adduced at trial, pointed out where in the record pertinent testimony may be found,

discussed trial objections and rulings, and found no meritorious claims on which he

could argue Session’s conviction should be reversed.1 Session filed a pro se brief.

When faced with an Anders brief, the appellate courts need not address the

merits of the issues raised in a pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the court of appeals may determine either

(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.

After our independent examination of the record in its entirety, the Anders

brief, and the pro se brief, we agree that there is no reversible error and there are no

arguable issues to support an appeal. Id. Accordingly, there is no need to appoint

new counsel to re-brief Session’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring court appointment of another counsel only if it is

determined arguable grounds exist to support the appeal).

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 2 Since we have concluded no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal,

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.2

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on March 8, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 28, 2018 Do Not Publish

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

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