Sophia Perez Heath v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00030-CR
__________________
SOPHIA PEREZ HEATH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-01-00864-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, in which the State agreed to cap her
punishment at twenty years of confinement, appellant Sophia Perez Heath pleaded
guilty to aggravated kidnapping. After conducting an evidentiary sentencing
hearing, the trial judge found Heath guilty and imposed a sentence of twenty years
of confinement.
Heath’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). Heath filed a pro se brief 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 that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We reviewed the
appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues
support the appeal. 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 February 3, 2021
Opinion Delivered March 3, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Heath may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2