Phillip Jerome Simmons v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00134-CR
________________
PHILLIP JEROME SIMMONS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 75th District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR35130
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Appellant Phillip Jerome Simmons (“Appellant” or
“Simmons”) of murder, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c).
After a hearing on punishment, the jury found the two alleged enhancements for
prior felony convictions “true” and assessed punishment as life in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. See id. § 12.42(d) (penalties for repeat or habitual
offenders).
1
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and
applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We
granted an extension of time for Simmons to file a pro se brief, and Simmons filed
a pro se brief in response.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives
an Anders brief and a pro se brief, the appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that
the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed
the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine 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.” (citation omitted) Id. We do not address the
merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have
determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination
of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed
the entire record, counsel’s brief, and Simmons’ pro se brief, and we have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28
2
(“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
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.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on January 30, 2024
Opinion Delivered April 24, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
1
Simmons may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3