Reginald Reece v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-22-00026-CR
REGINALD REECE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21F0725-005
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
ORDER
A Bowie County jury convicted Reginald Reece of theft of property valued at $2,500.00
or more, but less than $30,000.00, a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 31.03(e)(4)(A). The State’s indictment alleged that the offense was committed in a disaster
area, which made the offense punishable as a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 12.50(b)(8) (Supp.). The State also made habitual-offender allegations, which made the
offense punishable as a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425. Reece was
sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Reece’s attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Under the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel is
required to conduct a “conscientious examination” of the record and file “a brief referring to
anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967).
As required by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), we have conducted our own investigation of the record to discover
if there are arguable grounds for appeal. After conducting our own investigation of the record,
we have identified several arguable issues that require additional briefing, including (1) whether
Reece received an illegal sentence outside of the applicable range of punishment, (2) whether the
trial court’s jury charge on punishment egregiously harmed Reece, (3) whether counsel rendered
ineffective assistance, and (4) whether a time payment fee assessed in the bill of costs was
properly charged.
2
“When we identify issues that counsel on appeal should have addressed but did not, we
need not be able to say with certainty that those issues have merit; we need only say that the
issues warrant further development by counsel on appeal.” Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 200
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order). In such a situation, we “must then guarantee appellant’s
right to counsel by ensuring that another attorney is appointed to represent appellant on appeal.”
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
Accordingly, we grant current counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we abate this case to
the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel. The appointment is to be made
within ten days of the date of this order. Newly appointed appellate counsel is to address the
issues presented here, as well as any other issues that warrant further development on appeal.
A memorialization of the trial court’s appointment shall be entered into the record of this
case and presented to this Court, in the form of a supplemental clerk’s record, within ten days of
the date of appointment.
We hereby withdraw the current submission date of November 21, 2022. Upon receipt of
the supplemental clerk’s record contemplated by this order, our jurisdiction over this appeal will
resume, and we will establish a new briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
DATE: November 14, 2022
3