Paul Lloyd Clark v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 13, 2019
• Docket: 09-17-00310-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00310-CR ____________________ PAUL LLOYD CLARK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-03-03600-CR ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Paul Lloyd Clark’s court-appointed appellate counsel

submitted a brief in which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be

advanced to support Clark’s appeal from his conviction for criminal mischief, a first-

degree felony. 1 Based on our review of the record, we agree that no arguable issues

exist to support Clark’s appeal.

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 28.03 (criminal mischief), 28.03(b)(7) (defining the offense as a first-degree felony “if the amount of pecuniary loss is $300,000 or 1 On appeal, Clark’s appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Clark’s counsel concludes that

Clark’s appeal is frivolous because no meritorious issues can be argued to support

it.2 After Clark’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time to allow

Clark to file a pro se response. Clark did not file a response with the Clerk of this

Court, but instead filed a letter in the District Clerk’s office that he had “no interest

in pursuing an appeal.” The District Clerk filed a supplemental record with the Clerk

of this Court that contains Clark’s letter. However, his attorney did not then file a

motion to dismiss Clark’s appeal.

Therefore, we review the appeal based on Clark’s Anders brief. After

reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Clark’s appellate

counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous.

more”) (West Supp. 2018). We cite to the current version for any statutes that are identified in the opinion since any revisions to them since the date the State charged Clark with criminal mischief are not relevant to the appeal. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 2 Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Clark’s

appeal. 3 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 4

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 5, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 13, 2019 Do Not Publish

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

3 Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring court appointment of other counsel only if it is determined arguable grounds exist to support the appeal). 4 Clark may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3