Mitchell Dale Fortin v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-23-00146-CR
NO. 09-23-00147-CR
__________________
MITCHELL DALE FORTIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 21-06-08504-CR, 21-06-08514-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Appellant Mitchell Dale Fortin guilty of the first-degree felony
offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the second-degree felony offense
of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b), (h);
21.11(a)(1), (d). The jury assessed Fortin’s punishment at thirty-five years of
imprisonment for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and at twenty
1
years of imprisonment for the offense of indecency with a child. The trial court
granted the State’s Motion to Cumulate Sentence and ordered the sentences to run
consecutively.
On appeal, Fortin’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present
counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 17, 2023, we granted an extension of
time for Fortin to file pro se briefs, and Fortin filed no responses.
Upon receiving the Anders briefs, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeals are wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed
the entire records and counsel’s briefs, and we have found nothing that would
arguably support the appeals. 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.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
2
counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1
AFFIRMED.
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on February 26, 2024
Opinion Delivered February 28, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
1Fortin may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition of
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3