Sophia Perez Heath v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00030-CR __________________

SOPHIA PEREZ HEATH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-01-00864-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, in which the State agreed to cap her

punishment at twenty years of confinement, appellant Sophia Perez Heath pleaded

guilty to aggravated kidnapping. After conducting an evidentiary sentencing

hearing, the trial judge found Heath guilty and imposed a sentence of twenty years

of confinement.

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

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Heath filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal

Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs

or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). Rather, an appellate court 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.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We reviewed the

appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues

support the 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on February 3, 2021 Opinion Delivered March 3, 2021 Do Not Publish

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

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