Jamarcus Donel Polley v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00336-CR
NO. 09-21-00337-CR
__________________
JAMARCUS DONEL POLLEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 20-06-07676-CR, 20-09-10850-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jamarcus Donel Polley filed appeals from two convictions for
aggravated robbery, which resulted from the trial before the same jury in
trial court Cause Numbers 20-06-07676-CR and 20-09-10850-CR. 1 After
filing the notices of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (aggravated robbery is a
first-degree felony).
1
represent Polley in his appeals. The attorney discharged his
responsibilities to Polley by filing an Anders brief. 2 In the consolidated
brief the attorney filed in the appeals, Polley’s attorney explained why in
Polley’s case no arguable issues exist to reverse the judgments the trial
court signed convicting Polley of committing two aggravated robberies.3
The consolidated brief contains a professional evaluation of the record. In
the brief, Polley’s attorney explains why, under the record in Polley’s
case, no arguable issues exist to support reversing either judgment.4
Polley’s attorney also represented that he sent Polley a copy of the brief
and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of
Appeals notified Polley, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or a
response with the Court in his appeals on or before April 19, 2022. Polley,
however, did not 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
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.
2
would support his appeal. 5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the
reporter’s record, and the attorney’s briefs, we agree there are no
arguable grounds to support Polley’s appeals. Thus, it follows that the
appeals are frivolous. 6 For that reason, we need not require the trial court
to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeals. 7
The trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 14, 2022
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
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
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).
Polley may challenge our decision in the cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3