Mac Anthony Corrales v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00073-CR
__________________
MAC ANTHONY CORRALES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR34322
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mac Anthony Corrales appeals his conviction for online solicitation
of a minor, a second-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the
trial court appointed an attorney to represent Corrales for the appeal.
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 33.021(f).
1
The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Corrales by filing an
Anders brief. 2
In the brief, Corrales’s attorney represents he was unable to find
any meritorious issues to present in the appeal. 3 The brief the attorney
filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief,
Corrales’s attorney explains why, under the record in Corrales’s case, no
arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Corrales’s
attorney also represented that he sent Corrales a copy of the brief and
the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of
Appeals notified Corrales, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or
response with the Court on or before September 20, 2022. Corrales,
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
2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
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).
2
reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable
grounds to support the appeal. 6 Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous.7
For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another
attorney to re-brief the appeal. 8
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Do Not Publish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 Johnson, JJ.
6See 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.”).
7Id. at 826.
8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Corrales may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3