Sherman Dewayne Griffin III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00074-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-23-00074-CR ________________

SHERMAN DEWAYNE GRIFFIN III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-02-01601-CR ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sherman Griffin was convicted of murder, a first-degree felony. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). The trial court sentenced Griffin to 75 years in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

Griffin’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

1 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Griffin

of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but we

received no response from him. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we

need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may

determine: (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.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it

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

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED. JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on October 13, 2023 Opinion Delivered October 25, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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