Benjamin Garrett v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00264-CR
__________________
BENJAMIN GARRETT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20-35627
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Benjamin Garrett appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. We affirm.
In 2020, Garrett was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a
firearm), a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. Garrett pleaded
“not guilty,” he was tried by a jury in July 2022, and the jury found Garrett guilty
and found that he had used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
1
During the punishment phase of trial, the State provided evidence of a prior felony
conviction for manslaughter, and Garrett pleaded “true” to the enhancement. The
jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Garrett’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief wherein the
attorney stated that he had 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 Garrett to file a
pro se brief. On January 19, 2023, Garrett’s appellate attorney filed a Motion to
Temporarily Abate Court’s Decision requesting this Court to hold its decision for at
least forty-five days because counsel had not heard from Garrett, and counsel
requested additional time to determine whether there were any “relevant issues
and/or raise any point of error.” On January 20, 2023, Garrett filed a pro se Motion
for an Extension of Time for ninety days. We denied the motion to abate and granted
Garrett an extension until February 22, 2023, to file a pro se brief or response.
On March 10, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for Substitution of
Counsel. In the Motion, Appellant requested new appointed counsel because he
“feels that [his current appointed appellate counsel] cannot/or/will not render the
effective assistance of counsel[.]” He also refers to other pending charges and
2
another appointed counsel and requests new appointed counsel “for the purposes of
d[i]sposing of the additional charges.”
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. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we
conduct a full examination of the record 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 independently reviewed and conducted a full examination of the
entire appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28. We also conclude that Appellant’s pro se letter does
not state a legal issue or complaint, nor does it provide any legal authority or analysis
as required by the rules for appellate briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Therefore,
we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Garrett’s
3
appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on March 29, 2023
Opinion Delivered April 5, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1 Garrett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4