Opinion
09-20-00220-CR
08-10-2022
ANGELA CASSIDY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on June 27, 2022
On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-07-09172-CR
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HOLLIS HORTON JUSTICE
Angela Cassidy appeals her conviction for injuring a child by omission, a first-degree felony. After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Cassidy in her appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Cassidy filing an Anders brief. In the brief, Cassidy's attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in Cassidy's appeal. The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Cassidy's attorney explains why, under the record in Cassidy's case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court's judgment. Cassidy's attorney also represented that he sent Cassidy a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Cassidy, by letter, that she could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before May 3, 2021. Cassidy, however, did not respond.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Id.
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 would support the appeal. After reviewing the clerk's record, the reporter's record, and the attorney's brief, we agree there are no arguable grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows that the appeal is frivolous. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
See 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.").
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Cassidy may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.