Michael Duwon Session v. State ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-16-00448-CR
_________________
MICHAEL DUWON SESSION, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 16-10-11641-CR
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Duwon Session appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled
substance of more than four grams but less than 200 grams, a first degree felony,
enhanced because of his habitual offender status. See Tex. Health & Safety Code
Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2017); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West Supp.
2017). The trial court sentenced Session to serve a forty-year prison sentence. The
attorney appointed to represent Session in his appeal filed an Anders brief, which
1
asserted that the attorney reviewed the trial proceedings, discussed the evidence
adduced at trial, pointed out where in the record pertinent testimony may be found,
discussed trial objections and rulings, and found no meritorious claims on which he
could argue Session’s conviction should be reversed.1 Session filed a pro se brief.
When faced with an Anders brief, the appellate courts need not address the
merits of the issues raised in a pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, the court of appeals 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.
After our independent examination of the record in its entirety, the Anders
brief, and the pro se brief, we agree that there is no reversible error and there are no
arguable issues to support an appeal. Id. Accordingly, there is no need to appoint
new counsel to re-brief Session’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring court appointment of another counsel only if it is
determined arguable grounds exist to support the appeal).
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2
Since we have concluded no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal,
the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.2
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on March 8, 2018
Opinion Delivered March 28, 2018
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
2
Session may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3