Opinion
09-21-00302-CR
05-11-2022
AUTUMUS DEWAYNE MITCHELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on April 25, 2022
On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas, Trial Cause No. A190697-R
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LEANNE JOHNSON JUSTICE.
A grand jury indicted Appellant Autumus Dewayne Mitchell ("Appellant" or "Mitchell") for possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount greater than four grams but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Appellant waived his right to a jury and pleaded "not guilty." After a bench trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven years of confinement. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
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 Mitchell to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Mitchell.
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 and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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.") 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.
Mitchell may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
AFFIRMED.