Xavier Rashard Lacy v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00003-CR
__________________
XAVIER RASHARD LACY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25202
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Xavier Rashard Lacy appeals his conviction for robbery, a second-
degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed
an attorney to represent Lacy in his appeal. The attorney discharged his
responsibilities to Lacy by filing an Anders brief. 2
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a)(2), (b).
2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
1
In the brief, Lacy’s attorney represents there are no arguable
reversible errors to be addressed in Lacy’s appeal.3 The brief the attorney
filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Lacy’s
attorney explains why, under the record in Lacy’s case, no arguable
issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Lacy’s attorney also
represented that he sent Lacy a copy of the brief and the record. When
the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Lacy,
by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or
before July 17, 2022. Lacy, however, failed to respond.
When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to
independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney
assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that
would support the appeal.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the
reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable
grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. 6
3See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
4Id.
5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at
744).
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
6See
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
2
For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another
attorney to re-brief the appeal.7
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 26, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Lacy may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3