Spencer Andrew Craig v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 9, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00027-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00027-CR NO. 09-24-00028-CR NO. 09-24-00029-CR ________________

SPENCER ANDREW CRAIG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 21-10-14157-CR (Counts 1 and 2) and 21-10-14158-CR ______________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In trial court cause number 21-10-14157-CR, a grand jury indicted appellant

Spencer Andrew Craig for Aggregate Theft in the amount of $300,000 or more in

Count 1 and for Fraud Securing Execution of Document by Deception in excess or

equal to $300,000 in Count 2. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 31.03(e)(7), 32.46(b)(7).

In trial court cause number 21-10-14158-CR, a grand jury indicted Craig for

1 Misapplication of Fiduciary or Financial Property in the amount of more than

$150,000 and less than $300,000. See id. § 32.45(c)(6). The three cases were

consolidated and tried together before a jury.

In trial court cause number 21-10-14157-CR, a jury found Craig guilty of

Aggregate Theft as charged in Count 1, and the trial court assessed Craig’s

punishment at 10 years of confinement and ordered Craig to pay $306,136.11 in

restitution. In trial court cause number 21-10-14157-CR, a jury found Craig guilty

of Fraud in Securing the Execution of Document by Deception as charged in Count

2, and the trial court assessed Craig’s punishment at 10 years of confinement. In trial

court cause number 21-10-14158-CR, a jury found Craig guilty of Misapplication of

Fiduciary Property or Financial Property as alleged in the indictment, and the trial

court assessed Craig’s punishment at 10 years of confinement and ordered Craig to

pay $80,409.91 in restitution. The trial court ordered the sentences in the three cases

to run concurrently. Craig filed notices of appeal in each case.

On appeal, Craig’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents

counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 10, 2024, we granted an extension of time for

Craig to file pro se briefs, and Craig filed no responses.

2 Upon receiving the Anders briefs, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeals are 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 briefs, and we have found nothing that would

arguably support the appeals. 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 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.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on September 25, 2024 Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024 Do Not Publish

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

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