Percy Andrepont v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00250-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00249-CR NO. 09-22-00250-CR __________________

PERCY ANDREPONT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 20-35157 and 20-35158 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Percy Andrepont appeals his convictions in trial cause numbers 20-35157 and

20-35158 for indecency of a child. We affirm.

In 2020, Andrepont was indicted in both cases for indecency of a child, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11. The indictments included

five enhancement paragraphs, alleging Andrepont had five previous felony

convictions. In each case, Andrepont pleaded “not guilty” to the offense and the jury

1 found Andrepont guilty. During the punishment phase of trial, Andrepont pleaded

“true” to two of the enhancements and “not true” to the other three enhancements.

After hearing evidence, the trial court found four of the five enhancements “true,”

sentenced Andrepont to punishment at fifty years’ imprisonment in each case, and

ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed briefs stating that he has

reviewed the records in both cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the

records and applicable law, he concluded that the appeals lack merit and that there

are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of

time for Andrepont to file pro se briefs, and Andrepont filed no response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief in both cases, and we have found nothing that

would arguably support an appeal in either case. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 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 for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it

2 unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgments. 1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on October 17, 2023 Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1 Andrepont may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3