Lacie Renee Jarvis v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    __________________
    NO. 09-22-00143-CR
    __________________
    LACIE RENEE JARVIS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    __________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 9th District Court
    Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 20-06-07656-CR
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Lacie Renee Jarvis appeals her conviction for injury to a child, a
    first-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court
    appointed an attorney to represent Jarvis in her appeal. The attorney
    discharged his responsibilities to Jarvis by filing an Anders brief.2
    1See 
    Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04
    (b)(1).
    2See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967).
    1
    In the brief, Jarvis’s attorney represents there are no arguable
    reversible errors to be addressed in Jarvis’s appeal. 3 The brief the
    attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the
    brief, Jarvis’s attorney explains why, under the record in Jarvis’s case,
    no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Jarvis’s
    attorney also represented that he sent Jarvis a copy of the brief and the
    record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals
    notified Jarvis, by letter, that she could file a pro se brief or response with
    the Court on or before July 19, 2022. Jarvis, 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 Horton, Johnson 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).
    Jarvis may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
    discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-22-00143-CR

Filed Date: 8/2/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/4/2023