Rony Sanchez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00318-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00318-CR __________________

RONY SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR35036 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rony Sanchez appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, a first-

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

an attorney to represent Sanchez in the appeal. The attorney discharged

his responsibilities to Sanchez by filing an Anders brief. 2

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. 2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

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

reversible errors to be addressed in Sanchez’s appeal.3 The brief contains

a professional evaluation of the record, and Sanchez’s attorney explains

why under the record in Sanchez’s case no arguable issues exist to

reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Sanchez’s attorney also represents

that he sent Sanchez a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief

was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Sanchez, by

letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or

before February 27, 2023. Sanchez, 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 his appeal.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the

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

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). 2 exist to support Sanchez’s appeal. 6 It follows the appeal is frivolous. 7 For

that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal.8

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Submitted on July 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023 Do Not Publish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 Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

6See 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.”). 7Id. at 826. 8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

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