Kyle Gene Chism v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00318-CR __________________ KYLE GENE CHISM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25532 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, appellant Kyle Gene Chism pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court found the two prior felonies included in the enhancement paragraphs in the State’s Notice of Intent to Enhance to be true and assessed Chism’s punishment at thirty-two years of confinement. Chism’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 5, 2002, we granted an extension of time for Chism to file a pro se brief. Chism filed a pro se letter in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have determined the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 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. _________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on April 19, 2022 Opinion Delivered May 18, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Chism may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2