Warren DeBlanc III v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00344-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00344-CR __________________

WARREN DEBLANC III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00055 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Warren DeBlanc III (“Appellant” or

“DeBlanc”) for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit the offense of theft,

with an enhancement allegation for a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. §§ 12.42, 30.02(c)(2). In the jury’s presence, DeBlanc pleaded guilty to the

offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit the offense of theft, the

jury then found DeBlanc guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment, and the

trial court accepted the verdict. During the punishment phase, DeBlanc pleaded

1 “true” to the enhancement, the jury found the enhancement to be true, the jury

assessed punishment at sixty-five years of confinement, and the trial court accepted

the verdict and sentenced DeBlanc in accordance with the verdict. DeBlanc filed a

notice of appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has diligently reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the

record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Appellant’s

court-appointed attorney also filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

granted extensions of time for DeBlanc to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from DeBlanc.

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, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. 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 unnecessary to order appointment of new

2 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.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on April 27, 2023 Opinion Delivered May 10, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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